Kerry Goes F'N BALLISTIC On Ashcroft And Will REPLACE The Patriotic Act!!!

This speech is a veritable fireworks show. I can only include so much in this post. You have to read the whole thing to realize that Kerry has hit a whole other level. Kerry has taken off the gloves - and I mean really taken off the gloves. There is no else out there hitting with this much authority at this intensity.

This is the moment where Ali comes off the ropes and starts the smack down on Foreman. Ali was the underdog, too. Didn't have a prayer. Past his prime. Howard (Cossell) said he was washed up.

You tell me - does this sound like someone past their prime? Someone who doesn't have the fight left in him?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As I talk to people around the country, it’s clear there is a broad based fear that the ideologues of this Administration will stop at nothing to get dissenters out of the way. Already, they are summoning the full-power of their communications network – the attack ads, the Ann Coulters, the Sean Hannitys, the Rush Limbaughs – to try to stifle dissent. In the name of the War on Terror, they are attempting to diminish the very rights that define us. They turn civil debate into a shouting match of personal mudslinging that does a disservice to the quality of our democracy. These pretender protectors of our Constitution are trying to intimidate those who dare to speak out. We will not be silenced. We will be heard.

<>

Clearly in the War on Terror, we need to be prepared. Information is the most critical weapon we have. We need to be able to get and coordinate that information in a real way. And that means we need a President and an Attorney General who are ready to do that in ways that are consistent with who we are. Americans deserve to know there is some buffer between them and the unbridled power of our government.

After September 11th, this Administration gathered and used broad new powers to investigate the private lives of people in this country. The powers were supposed to be used fight the War on Terror. But George Bush and John Ashcroft have gone beyond that. They have used police powers in secret ways and for political purposes. John Ashcroft has authorized his agents to monitor church meetings and political rallies without any cause and without the need to get approval. Thirteen FAA employees and a high-tech Homeland Security tracking system were used to help Tom Delay track down Texas State Legislators who were resisting his plan to give Republicans more seats in Congress.

And the FBI investigated peaceful demonstrators who spoke out against this Administration’s policies in Iraq. I know what it’s like to be spied on by the government because it happened to me under Nixon when I came home from Vietnam and said that war was wrong. And one thing we don’t need in this country is an Attorney General who spies on Americans.

<>

An America that creates a secret police power which can by its secret discretion invade the privacy of Americans and intimidate them is a far cry from what our Founders envisioned and from what we have fought to protect for 228 years.

A country where you are visited by the authorities for thinking or voicing an unpopular idea smacks more of the Taliban than Thomas Jefferson. Trading in our basic rights for the false facade of security is not worth it – and it is not worthy of a great nation such as America.

We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.

I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.

But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks. They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.

This Administration has shown a pattern of abusing civil liberties. At this very moment, an FBI agent could be rifling through every website you’ve ever visited – and you would never know it. A Justice Department official in Washington could be reading every email you’ve sent in the last few months – and they wouldn’t need a judges permission or even a reason to do so. School librarians could be being placed under gag orders to keep them from speaking out. Federal investigators could be demanding and receiving upon request your private hospital medical records. Law enforcement officers could be entering your house while you are gone – rifling through your possessions – and leaving without every letting you know they had been there.

If I’m elected President, we will put an end to “sneak and peak” searches which permit law enforcement to conduct a secret search and seize evidence without notification. Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize property, copy computer files, or load a secret keystroke detector on a computer. These searches should be limited only to the most rare circumstances. And law enforcement should provide notice of the search within seven days, unless a court extends the period of notification.

We will provide Americans with protections from wiretaps, prevent local police officers from spying on innocent people, and that ensures our courts guarantee appropriate national security protections.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

<>

That he is a phony and that thing on his head came from the tail of a pony!

I love When We Were Kings!!!

I'm still trying to get the campaign to change their chant to "Ker-ry boma-ye!"

<>

:yourock: Funk

Dr.Funk mentioned what Cossell said of Ali before the Ali-Foreman fight. I was just quoting Ali as a joke because I knew Dr.Funk would get it... :-)

Senate Approves Intelligence Bill
KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press
Posted on Fri, Nov. 21, 2003

WASHINGTON - The Senate gave final approval Friday to a measure that will make it easier for FBI agents investigating terrorism to demand financial records from casinos, car dealerships and other businesses.

The changes were part of a bill authorizing 2004 intelligence programs. The Senate approved the bill in a voice vote. The House approved the bill 264-163 Thursday, and it now goes to President Bush for his signature.

Most details of the bill are secret, including the total costs of the programs, estimated to be about $40 billion. The amount is slightly more than Bush had requested, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss said Thursday.

In one of the public sections, the bill expands the number of businesses from which the FBI and other U.S. authorities conducting intelligence work can demand financial records without seeking court approval.
...
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/7320049.htm

Most details of the bill are secret, including the total costs of the programs, estimated to be about $40 billion.

:wtf:??????????????

And I highly doubt Kerry was even in D.C. on the 21st.

It's amazing how powerful he is. He gets blamed for every bill that passes and every bill that doesn't. That's alot of power, I wonder how many bills he's passed that you like. Do you know?

http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/legislation.html#
I cant copy and paste for you because its on bandwidth.
I prefer him speaking out than defending it, :shrug: and btw nice one sandsnea, I bet there are plenty of bills that Kerry was behind that we like. :shrug: but people seem to forget hes one of ours, and damnit I would give the piece of crap I call Senator now for someone like him.

Gordon Smith... ick. He's not as bad as some. My own Senator Wyden voted for the Medicare Bill, and he's supposed to be the good Senator in my state! *sigh*

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/genpostwar_folder/genpostwarbudgets_folder/budgets99.html

"The DCI said that "the CIA Act of 1949 expresses Congress's view 'that intelligence appropriations and expenditures ... be shielded from public view."

"In an opinion dated 12 November 1999, "U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) under the Freedom of Information Act, saying the director of central intelligence has broad power 'to protect the secrecy and integrity of the intelligence process.'" The opinion was made public on 22 November 1999."

I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.



Tells me all I need to know.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator has the right to make his whole
argument, and I don't want to interfere with that. Unfortunately,
because this is something that we have had no hearings on, we haven't
had the discussions in the appropriate committees--Intelligence, Armed
Services, and Judiciary--we are somewhat limited in opposition. I will
not cite numerous examples of situations which I think would make clear
that we do not have the limitations. I know the concern the Senator
from Arizona has. I don't question his concerns. But in open session, I
am restrained from going into some of the very specific things where
concerns he raised have been responded to in the law by our country. I
will not. But that is why I would suggest something like this to the
Armed Services Committee which has the ability to go easily into closed
session, and often does. It would be able to look at it and make a
recommendation to the Senate.

Our committee would be able to make a recommendation to the Senate,
which can be done relatively quickly, and the Intelligence Committee.
I would feel far more comfortable voting on something like this if
these various committees not only had a chance to look at it but that
President Bush's administration--the Attorney General, the Director of
CIA, the Secretary of Defense--would have the opportunity to let us
know their views on it. I would feel far more comfortable with that. I
worry that we may run into the situation where--all of us have joined
together in our horror at these despicable, murderous acts in New York
and at the Pentagon--we do not want to change our laws so that it comes
back to bite us later on.
....

Somewhere we ought to ask ourselves: Do we totally ignore the normal
ways of doing business in the Senate? If we do that, what is going to
happen when we get down to the really difficult questions?
Maybe the Senate wants to just go ahead and adopt new abilities to
wiretap our citizens. Maybe they want to adopt new abilities to go into
people's computers. Maybe that will make us feel safer. Maybe. And
maybe what the terrorists have done made us a little bit less safe.
Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country.
If that is what the Senate wants, we can vote for it. But do we
really show respect to the American people by slapping something
together, something that nobody on the floor can explain, and say we
are changing the duties of the Attorney General, the Director of the
CIA, the U.S. attorneys, we are going to change your rights as
Americans, your rights to privacy? We are going to do it with no
hearings, no debate. We are going to do it with numbers on a page that
nobody can understand.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s091301.html

Evidently these concerns didn't bother S. Kerry.
Also see ...
http://bordc.org/legislation.htm#Senate

Why quote words from somebody who voted for it too? 99 Senators voted for this, there are parts of this bill that are logically necessary except to those who think Bush did it. Most Americans don't think that, most Americans think that some laws needed updating to deal with cell phones, etc. Now it's time to go through the bill, piece by piece, and fix it. Reason, rational thinking, let's try to use some of it around here.

and yes, this vote is completely in keeping with Kerry's reputation for trying to have it both ways. say one thing, then do another, try to appeal to one side with deeds, the other side with words. like fighting and killing in Vietnam, then coming back and opposing the war. throwing medals over the fence, but not his own. voting for IWR, then arguing against Bush's Iraq policy. now he's trying to "fix" the patriot act, which wouldn't need fixing if enough senators had been brave enough to vote against it in the first place.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Very well said, my fellow Oregonian!!!!

That was weird. I've been called names directly and the posts have been left up. Somebody told me just yesterday that I shouldn't be here, and the post is still up. I ask somebody some direct questions about decision making and my post gets deleted? Unbelievable.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is it anything John Kerry doesn't change his mind about?

Saying exactly what went on, what is going on, and what he's going to do about it. That's accountability.

Does Dean do that on anything? Why is deregulation of electricity bad? It's working in alot of states, so what's the difference between the places it's working and California? Has Dean explained himself? Has he explained his position on Medicare and why he went ahead with HMO's for Medicaid? Has he explained specifically why he has changed? Has he admitted his own comments about the Patriot Act, said anything specific about the details of that bill? He isn't even going to repeal the entire Patriot Act. Does he even have enough knowledge on terrorism to make decisions about what parts of this are important and what aren't? With all of his comments about legal technicalities in Vermont, do you even know to what extent he would protect civil rights?

Flip-flopping is having a position for years and years, then suddenly changing it in an election year with no explanation whatsoever. Except that your campaign manager told you to run as an anti-war maverick outsider.