Al Franken on Homeland Security
DFL Jr Senator (MN)
Documents leaked by now infamous contract employee Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA has been collecting the phone & web records of millions of Americans using secret court orders. "Americans still have no way of knowing whether the government is striking the right balance between privacy & security--or whether their privacy is being violated," Franken said. "There needs to be more transparency."
Google offered support for Franken's legislation, which would lift gag orders on companies & allow them to report information about data requests they get from the government. [An opponent] said that disclosing the requests would give terrorists an advantage; they'd gravitate to companies that receive no requests.
Thus the emotional and personal groundwork was laid for a brutal campaign years before Franken announced his own ambitions. Franken-Coleman 2008 was not Wellstone-Coleman 2.0.
Q: Will you cosponsor a resolution in Congress supporting the establishment of a UN Emergency Peace Service if one is introduced?
A: Yes. I would support anything that helps shorten the time it takes for peacekeepers to be deployed.
A: Yes. The US has numbers of nuclear weapons way beyond what we might need as a deterrent. The most senior officials from earlier administrations are all stressing the urgency of reducing our arsenal. As we work to stop nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, reductions on our part will help us regain the moral high ground. And, of course, a good first step is to abandon any plans to build new nuclear weapons.
Q: Do you support U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
A: Yes. Nuclear weapons tests are a key threshold for aspiring nuclear powers, as we saw recently in North Korea. The CTBT is an important pillar of the nonproliferation effort, and I support it.
As an official, bipartisan body, the 9/11 Commission couldn't come right out and say, as I did, that Bush had dropped the ball on terrorism over and over again from the minute he came into office. But anyone who reads the report can't come to any other conclusion.
To me, the most infuriating passage deals with Bush's nonreaction to the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief, memorably titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US." The brief warned, among other things, "preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in NY."
Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission found that following the August 6 PDB, "We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11th between the President and his advisors about the possibility of a threat of al Qaeda attack in the US."
It is my firm belief that President Bush never read the August 6 PDB.
Sorry, cynics! Asked about a possible political motive the day after the suspiciously unwarranted August 1 alert, Tom Ridge was firm: "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."
On the other, cynical, hand, it did come out after the election that Ridge had met with hotshot GOP pollsters [regularly]. What we don't know is whether the pollsters specifically focus-group-tested the phrase "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."
The terror alerts served no purpose other than to remind people that they could be incinerated at any moment. But that reminder was exactly the point.
But the State Department had made a number of small mistakes, including leaving out the terrorist attacks that had taken place during an unusually busy terrorist attack season from Nov. 12 through Dec. 31. [After those corrections], the number of "significant" terrorist attacks had shot up from the previous year, reaching, not the lowest, but the HIGHEST level ever recorded.
The next year, the State Department's report on terrorism did not include statistics on terrorist attacks--the very activity that defines terrorism. Which isn't to say they didn't COLLECT the statistics: [they just stopped reporting them].
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Smith, R-TX]: America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats. On Feb. 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct "roving" wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions expire would leave every American less safe.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Conyers, D-MI]: Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business produce virtually any type record. We didn't think that that was right then. We don't think it's right now. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. And so I urge a "no" vote on the extension of these expiring provisions.
Status: Passed 86-12
Repeals current Department of Defense policy [popularly known as "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell"] concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a member. Authorizes the re-accession into the Armed Forces of otherwise qualified individuals previously separated for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of 'marriage' and 'spouse' and referred to as the 'Defense of Marriage Act').
|Other candidates on Homeland Security:||Al Franken on other issues:|
Retiring in 2014 election:
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
Senate Retirements 2014:
Senate races Nov. 2014:
AK: Begich(D) vs.Miller(R) vs.Treadwell(R) vs.Sullivan(R)
AR: Pryor(D) vs.Cotton(R)
CO: Udall(D) vs.Gardner(R) vs.Baumgardner(R) vs.
DE: Coons(D) vs.O`Donnell(R)
GA: Gingrey(R) vs.Nunn(D) vs.Perdue(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R) vs.Kingston(R)
HI: Schatz(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
IA: Braley(D) vs.Whitaker(R) vs.Ernst(R) vs.Clovis(R)
ID: Risch(R) vs.Mitchell(D)
IL: Durbin(D) vs.Oberweis(R) vs.Hansen(L) vs.
KS: Roberts(R) vs.Tiahrt(R) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Taylor(D) vs.Sebelius(D)
KY: McConnell(R) vs.Bevin(R) vs.Grimes(D)
LA: Landrieu(D) vs.Cassidy(R) vs.Maness(R)
MA: Markey(D) vs.Herr(R) vs.Skarin(I) vs.
ME: Collins(R) vs.D`Amboise(R) vs.Bellows(D)
MN: Franken(D) vs.McFadden(R) vs.Abeler(R)
MS: Cochran(R) vs.McDaniel(R) vs.Childers(D)
MT: Walsh(D) vs.Bohlinger(D) vs.Daines(R) vs.Edmunds(R)
NC: Hagan(D) vs.Tillis(R)
NE: Sasse(R) vs.Osborn(R)
NH: Shaheen(D) vs.Martin(R) vs.Brown(R) vs.Smith(R) vs.Rubens(R) vs.Testerman(R)
NJ: Booker(D) vs.Sabrin(R) vs.
NM: Udall(D) vs.Weh(R) vs.Clements(R)
OK-2: Shannon(R) vs.Lankford(R)
OK-6: Inhofe(R) vs.Silverstein(D)
OR: Merkley(D) vs.Conger(R) vs.Wehby(R)
RI: Reed(D) vs.Carcieri(R)
SC-2: Scott(R) vs.Wade(D)
SC-6: Graham(R) vs.Stamper(D) vs.Mace(R) vs.Bright(R)
SD: Rounds(R) vs.Weiland(D) vs.Pressler(I)
TN: Alexander(R) vs.Carr(R)
TX: Cornyn(R) vs.Stockman(R) vs.Roland(L)
VA: Warner(D) vs.Gillespie(R) vs.Sarvis(L)
WV: Capito(R) vs.Raese(R) vs.Tennant(D) vs.McGeehan(R)
WY: Enzi(R) vs.
Senate Votes (analysis)
Email Contact Form