All I can say is: wow. You think so highly of the power of peanut gallery here that you would make the time with that schedule to make post? I am sincerely amazed and honored. Lehrer has gained a viewer, but you have also gained an activist on some of your goals. (I also now have regrets that I didn't have C-Span II on!)

When you have more time, see my more general thanks on your last post.

I'm proud to be one of your WI constituents. Keep up the good work!

Thank you so much for your efforts!

As I have always understood it, the reason 9-11 was not prevented was not because there was not enough data points available. The problem was that there was not enough inter-agency communication to connect the available data points.

The Patriot Act throws civil liberties under the bus in order to buy us more data points which we don't need. As with the War in Iraq, the administration is barking up the wrong tree while inter-agency communications are still as confused as they were on September 10, 2001.

Are we all fawning? Fine. Russ For Prez!!! :-)

A little hard to read, but that was a great debate. I'm may be a little confused -- at the end of the exchange, Specter said that there was judicial review. Is that something that got added in conference? Because there is no judicial review today.

Mr. Specter's logic doesn't work. The idea that you are not "allowed" to oppose the committee report because you supported one part of it in the past that is the same or even better, even though the rest of it has changed and has gotten worse, is nonsense.

And there's more than 2 or 3 people who watch c-span2, either live, tape, or summary, so Sen. Specter doesn't treat us very kindly there either.

Lastly, your concerns that you expressed are legitimate and important, particularly on the issue of secret searches requiring relevance to terrorism/spy. There are elements of the government in local areas that will abuse such powers to go on fishing expeditions in order to defame, settle scores or become contemporary vigilantes because they think that they know what's best for us--and in the process ruin innocent lives. We need to prevent that.

Cheers,

U.

As glad as I am that Sen. Feingold is standing up against backroom deals on the PATRIOT act, it is sad that such actions have become extrodinary.

 Somewhere along the line, we got used to Sens. and Reps. who follow the party line, and never argue about the substance of a bill or an amendment, rather, they focus on the politics of the admendment.

I wish every Rep. and Sen. would be like Feingold here and actually encourage debate and discussion on real issues rather than just plotting, name calling, and soundbites. 

Thanks for your help. I support a filibuster, if it is necessary to stop this renewal. It has given much too much power to the executive branch. Good luck! Letters off to Feinstein and Boxer.

Again, Senator Feingold, thank you.

It is significant, I think, that the creation and the passing of both "Patriot Acts" was done with some hidden urgency; the first being passed with almost secrecy in the middle of the night, and the existance of the second part was denied until it could be denied no longer.

That one fact says a volumns about the motives of those who so urgently pushed them into the lives of the American people.

If these acts were as above board and without undermining the private freedoms of the American people as is claimed to be by those who support them, the American people would have no qualms about their passing and being implimented.  But they are not, and the American people know it.

We have enough corrupt political history in this country over misdeeds by government officials (elected or not) to cause grave concern about turning over so much more power to them via the Patriot Acts.

Please ask Congress the following question; What good is it to the American people to have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights if they can be overridden by the Patriot Acts?

Thanks for listening.

Senator that was a great exchange with Senator Specter.  The Senate caved in during the conference negotiations.  Senator Specter who helped draft the Senate version now is trying to make the case for compromise.  I saw your effuse praise for the Chairman in his efforts to correct the errors in the bill.  But if at the end of the day he agrees to compromise, all he stood for goes for naught.  I am looking forward to and will be watching PBS tonight...

I'm impressed! In response to your request I have emailed everyone on my mailing list asking them to email or call their representatives. This is so serious and so necessary that I'm hoping others will get caught up in your leadership and energy to backup this fight. Onward!

How much longer must Reid and Pelosi pretend that the conference system merits even the cloak of respectability that they give by appointing conferees?

It was bad enough when the Senate merely got rolled in the "reconciliation" (like, "Hey, Democrats. Reconcile yourselves to being lower than dogshit around here")process.

The new and improved version where stuff pops up that never got through EITHER house is over-the-top.

Shut it down!

It gives me great pride to be represented by an intellectual like Russ Feingold in the US Senate.  I am always amazed by his willingness to debate with people, whether they be constiuents or other Senators, about issues that are so politically charged as the war on terror.  Keep up the good work, Senator.

watching that floor debate on CSPAN2.  To have a chance to speak to Feingold here afterwards is so Internet-age it's scary.  To do so while I'm supposed to be working is even richer.

Unfortunately, I'm not well-informed enough on either the Patriot Act or Senate negotiation tactics to comment much. 

I do have to assume that you, Feingold, knew the House would water down your already compromised Senate bill, and the question was just one of how much damage they'd do.  Looks like they've done a lot, and Specter has decided to defend the result.  (On the Senate floor at least.) 

Draw the line whereever you need to, Innernet liberals like me will trust your judgment and back you up with what little we've got.  You really are our direct representative on this.  Make your own judgment as to what kind of compromise is ok, and if you can't get something acceptable, I'll be the first to help you scream about it. 

But yeah.  In the absence of knowing the details, I'm completely and categorically trusting you.  Go get 'em. 


And oh yeah, the main point I'd wanted to make.  It looks to me like plenty of Americans were watching, and even if they weren't, floor debates seem better than no floor debates.  Tell Specter that not only were there more than 2 or 3, you yourself talked to 2 or 3 on the Magical Internet (don't mention that one of them had nothing to say).  If you can encourage him and other Senators towards more floor debates, that will be really cool.

Thanks for your time Senator.

As a Pennsylvanian nothing Arlen Specter says surprises me. I haven't believed him since he put forward the ludicrous single bullet theory to justify the Warren Commission's claim that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed JFK.

Oh, I wouldn't bet my house on Hillary getting through those of us in the Democratic base. A lot of us are not happy with Hillary.

Don't forget this aspect when writing your Senators [WaPo]:

The [new] bill adds language prohibiting people from "willfully and knowingly" entering a restricted area "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." The measure also applies to security breaches "in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance," according to the bill.

Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a year in prison.

To the ACLU, the changes would open the door to even tighter security restrictions at major events and would subject protesters to harassment from federal law enforcement officers. The Bush administration has come under sharp criticism from liberal and civil-liberties groups for disputed arrests and security measures at presidential events.

"It's cementing the trend of the Secret Service basically acting to arrest or harass or control dissenters, and now not just at presidential events but at other events," said Timothy H. Edgar, the ACLU's national security counsel. 

The point isn't that I think H.C. will be the nominee, or that I want her to be. It's that Republicans ought to consider all portions of the PATRIOT act as a weapon they will be handing to ALL presidents and their AG's-- even the ones that scare them the most.

It's that Republicans ought to consider all portions of the PATRIOT act as a weapon they will be handing to ALL presidents

I don't think GOPs think like that, Decatur. Republicans assume a Democrat will never be President again, and act thusly.

I'm watching The News Hour right now and Sessions is saying that third parties who get supoenas for business or personal records requested by a law enforcement agency. What kind of safeguard is that? Why would a telephone company object on behalf of one of their customers if Homeland Security or the FBI requests records? What basis or knowledge would the phone company have to justify a refusal?
Feingold is crushing Sessions and Sessions knows it. He just said "No one has any real objections." WTF? We better start seeing more Democrats stepping forward and PDQ. 
Feingold pointed out that he is just holding out for the same provisions that were already voted on unanimously in the Senate. Sessions is a bloody fool and so is Harry Reid if he doesn't step forward to put an end to this nonsense. If Feingold, Durbin and Salazar's filibuster fails, Harry Reid is a failure. 

My apologies. I was in a hurry to do something. Will come back to it later.