----- Original Message ----- From: "Diane Durham-Bothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: Fwd: FC: Partial transcript of Ashcroft's "Bill? What Bill?" testimony
> > --- Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:59:44 -0500 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: FC: Partial transcript of Ashcroft's "Bill? > > What Bill?" testimony > > > > > > --- > > > > From: "Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi)" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: FC: Ashcroft tells Congress that > > Patriot Act II is a ghost, f > > rom IP > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:10:19 -0800 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > The text below is the verbatim from the Federal > > Document Clearing House > > that does transcription services for congressional > > hearings. Other than > > this, I don't know where it might be online. > > > > ASHCROFT: Senator, with your permission, I'd like > > to respond to > > the suggestion that there is a PATRIOT Act II. When > > individuals > > indicate to you that if there is a proposal, we'll > > confer with you, I > > believe they are right. There is not a proposed > > Terrorist Act II from > > the Justice Department. No final discussion has > > been made with the > > attorney general about proposals. No final > > discussion has been made > > with the administration about proposals. > > > > Now, let me just say that we constantly are > > thinking of things > > that ought to be considered. And we believe that > > it's in the interest > > of the country that we think expansively and that we > > have a thorough > > and clear debate about them considering the pluses > > and the minuses. > > And we don't believe that it's appropriate to never > > mention anything > > unless it's already been decided that it's totally > > OK. You can't do > > that; consideration requires that. > > > > So if someone leaks the fact that there are > > items under > > consideration, that does not mean -- or that there > > is a matter of > > discussion -- that doesn't mean anything out of the > > ordinary. I hope > > that characterizes the fact that we are constantly > > considering how to > > improve. > > > > I want to assure you that there has been no > > bill, no proposal > > decided on. I am keenly aware that the > > administration cannot pass > > legislation. Only members of the Congress can pass > > legislation. It > > would be the height of absurdity for me to have a > > secret matter that I > > hope to make a law without telling Congress. I > > mean, I simply don't > > understand that. > > > > So we will confer. But I will prefer, if I can, > > to weed out > > things that I believe are inappropriate before I > > come to the Congress > > with an idea. > > > > FEINGOLD: General, I really urge you to do > > that. > > > > And let me just say that you know my view that > > the last time we > > had a USA PATRIOT Act that the kind of discussion > > and airing of the > > issues certainly did not happen. It's a debate > > about whether it could > > have happened. I appreciate your commitment to it > > happening in this > > case. And the fact is, there are some specific > > proposals or possible > > proposals out there. I don't think it's too early > > for people, like > > you and me and others, to start discussion whether > > they're a good > > idea. > > > > And I'm wondering if you could respond to my > > specific question, > > in the seconds I have, which is can you cite an > > example of a terrorist > > plot that went undetected because local police had > > their hands tied by > > consent decree of placing limits on their domestic > > spying > > capabilities? > > > > ASHCROFT: I cannot. > > > > FEINGOLD: Thank you, General. > > > > And of course, I look forward to discussing > > these provisions and, > > perhaps, we could follow up with a conversation > > about the items that > > we saw, at least in this draft, whatever this draft > > is. There's > > enough items there that people are raising concerns > > about that the > > conversations and consultations should begin now, in > > my view. > > > > ASHCROFT: Well, I don't believe that I should > > start to consult > > and defend things which I believe are indefensible > > or not a part of > > something that I would seek to propose. I guess > > that's my view. > > > > Until I have something that I think is > > appropriate, I don't know > > that I should engage in some discussion about > > something that we don't > > believe is appropriate. We could agree on a lot of > > these things that, > > hey, those don't belong in our discussion. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:20 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: FC: Ashcroft tells Congress that > > Patriot Act II is a ghost, > > from IP > > > > is this online anywhere? > > > > bb > > > > On 5 Mar 2003 at 8:29, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > Date sent: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:29:25 > > -0500 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Declan McCullagh > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: FC: Ashcroft tells Congress > > that Patriot Act II is > > a ghost, from IP > > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ------ Forwarded Message > > From: "Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi)" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:23:30 -0800 > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Ashcroft: Patriot II is a ghost > > > > Sen. Russ Feingold just a few minutes ago during a > > hearing this > > morning on Homeland Security asked Atty. Gen. > > Ashcroft why he hadn't > > come to Congress to discuss provision of the > > "Patriot Act II." > > > > Ashcroft replied, categorically, that "there is no > > Patriot Act II. > > That said, it doesn't mean that we aren't constantly > > thinking and > > discussing how to make things better, safer," > > Ashcroft said. "So if > > there are some leaks... it's about what we've been > > thinking," Ashcroft > > said. > > > > "There has been no bill decided on, no proposal > > decided on," Ashcroft > > said. "It would be the height of absurdity to have > > a bill I want to > > make law without informing Congress first." > > > > Feingold wasn't buying what Ashcroft was saying. > > "Well, there is > > something out there," Feingold shot back, "and I'd > > appreciate you > > coming to Congress first." > > > > Ashcroft finished off saying that "Until I think we > > have something > > appropriate" to discuss "I don't think we should > > engage in debate on > > something until it's appropriate." > > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and > > technology mailing list > > You may redistribute this message freely if you > > include this notice. > > To subscribe to Politech: > > http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html > > This message is archived at > > http://www.politechbot.com/ > > Like Politech? Make a donation here: > > http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at > > http://www.mccullagh.org/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ >
