Take The Time To Get PATRIOT Right
Take The Time To Get PATRIOT Right
[Our guest blogger, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.]
The Bush’s Administration’s tendencies to unilateralism – aided and abetted by conservative leaders in Congress – have produced some of the worst decisions, scandals and excesses of the last four years.
It’s happening again with the rewrite of the USA PATRIOT Act, but you may not be aware of the details.
In the Senate, we worked hard to produce a balanced, bipartisan bill that passed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate unanimously. Chairman Arlen Specter and I felt it important to work as hard as we could toward producing a bill that could be broadly supported inside and outside of the Congress, and I applaud his efforts toward that goal. Conservative leaders in the House followed a different path that excluded much of the input from Democratic members and even from the Republican rank and file.
When the time came to write a compromise bill in the House-Senate conference, the Bush Administration and congressional conservatives reverted again to unilateralism, closing the doors to conferees with whom they disagreed. The bill they produced is far less balanced than the Senate bill.
The result is a proposed conference “agreement” that, predictably, falls short of the more balanced Senate bill and is drawing fire from both sides of the aisle.
Congressional leaders tried to rush an earlier version through the House and Senate before Thanksgiving, but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter cooperated with me in buying more time. And in just two weeks we already have been able to make some substantial improvements – for instance, in getting four-year instead of seven-year sunsets. Now they’re trying to force final House and Senate votes by the end of this week.
The remaining concerns about the conference report center in particular on the use of National Security Letters (NSLs), and on inadequate checks for use of secret FISA court orders for library records and other sensitive information.
The reason we are even going through the process of reviewing and renewing the PATRIOT Act itself is a fruit of bipartisanship in writing the first PATRIOT Act. In October 2001, then-Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and I teamed up to insist on adding sunset provisions to the bill. These sunsets set an expiration date of December 31, 2005, on certain government powers that had some of the greatest potential to affect the civil liberties of the American people, to ensure that Congress would revisit the PATRIOT Act within a few years and consider refinements to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans more effectively. We prevailed, and the sunsets were included.
Senator John Sununu (R-N.H.) and I now are building a bipartisan coalition of senators to win more time for Congress to make this a better bill. Our coalition now includes Sens. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), and it is growing day by day.
Security and liberty are always in tension in a free society, and especially after the attacks of 9/11. In a dictatorship, laws are obeyed through force of arms. In America, our laws are obeyed with the consent of the governed. We need to do all we can to make sure the PATRIOT Act has appropriate checks and balances and oversight so these powers given to government agencies can have the confidence of the American people. Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend.
Ben Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. We are the current stewards of the liberty that, thanks to our forebears, is our birthright as Americans. We owe it to the American people — past, present and future — to get this right.
– Patrick Leahy
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I don’t think we should reauthorize any of it. We should scrap the whole thing. It’s just a product of right-wing fear mongering.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:12 amI’m with digger on this one. We’re already pretty nearly a police state. We don’t need law enforcement to have more powers, we need checks and balances on the powers law enforcement already has.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:30 amWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government … these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Need any more be said about eliminating the Patriot Act?
December 14th, 2005 at 9:30 amIn Sen. Leahy defense I think he is doing good work here. It’s easy for us in the comments section of a blog to say that the whole thing should be trashed. But the more likely alternative that Leahy is fighting against is for the whole thing to be extended perminantly. Someone has to make sure that happens.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:33 amThere never was a need for special legislation to keep our nation secure. Past administrations have done it through times that were just as troubled as these without having to infringe on constitutional rights or spy on people who are guilty of nothing but lack of trust in their president. The fact that Bush needs expanded powers is indicative of his incompetence in governing and leading our nation.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:45 amSenator, I applaud your efforts to limit the damage of the so-called Patriot Act. We need to strengthen our Bill of Rights, not weaken them. We need International cooperation, not the foreign policy of imperialism. We need transparency in government, not absolute secrecy. We need a government that respects our rights and those of other peoples.
I’m sure you are aware the policy of the neoconservative movement “views civil liberties with suspicion, as unneccessary restrictions on the federal government”, a summary by Ron Paul (R-Tex).
We have seen what this administration is capable of, many of us personally. Many of us are aware of the details. Where is the bill to put us back on track and hold these people accountable?
December 14th, 2005 at 9:46 amI am at a loss here. Every time I sit down and try to understand what is wrong with the Patriot Act, I read comments like #1 and #2 and end the debate. Can someone intelligently explain to me what provision of the Patriot Act is so awful?
December 14th, 2005 at 9:51 am#6 — I’d suggest reading this piece, issued by Leahy’s office.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:03 amC-BS, how about you tell us exactly what it is about the Patriot act that you feel is vitally needed?
“Section 215 of the Patriot Act amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to give the FBI vastly expanded authority to search business records, including the records of bookstores and libraries: the FBI may request the records secretly; it is not required to prove that there is ‘probable cause’ to believe the person whose records are being sought has committed a crime; and the bookseller or librarian who receives an order is prohibited from revealing it to anyone except those whose help is needed to produce the records.”
Currently, the FBI doesn’t have to get a court order to do a “sneak & peek” on your home and they don’t have to tell you for months. They don’t even have to think you’ve done anything to violate any law, they can just do it.
If you are arrested under the Patriot Act provisions, they don’t have to charge you with any crime for weeks, months, or even years. They don’t even have to give you access to a lawyer to fight your arrest. They can just pick you off the streets and arrest you and claim it was done for “national security”.
So, C-BS, what parts of the Patriot act are you willing to sacrifice personal liberties for?
December 14th, 2005 at 10:12 amWhen a senator starts off his post with a lie, it’s not a good sign.
Stop playing politics with US national security, senator.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:26 amDemocrat Soldier is right in some respects, but not in others. The FBI does have to get a court order to conduct a “sneak & peek” search. In fact, it has to get a warrant from a court and that warrant must be based on probable cause that a crime has been or is likely to be committed. Normally, the government must “knock and annouce” when they conduct a search pursuant to a warrant. The “sneak & peek” provision allows an agent to execute a warrant and delay notifying the subject of a search for a period of time.
That’s not to say that the reauthorization bill is ok. It’s not. It compromises civil liberties in many respects–most significantly, I think, by not sufficiently limiting the government’s authority under Section 215, as Democrat Soldier correctly points out.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:26 amThe funny (well, curious) thing about this issue is that we on the progressive side probably agree more with the libertarian wing of the republican party. Why aren’t the two sides cutting a deal?
Look at what existed prior to 9/11 and what may have made a difference in stopping it. Very little that was actually put forth in the “Patriot Act” (a misnomer for sure). We could probably support a couple of these items. But most of them seem to eliminate or reduce Americans freedoms and civil liberties without furthering a national security agenda at all. It’s those portions we’d like gutted and we aren’t alone on that issue.
If it looks, smells & goose steps like gestapo, we don’t want it.
So I guess my point is, each individual Congressman and Senator has to be approached about what they like, what they don’t and what they are willing to go with. Don’t close your eyes just because on other issues, we don’t agree.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:27 amJudd – btw – thanks for bringing others to the table here. I appreciate it.
wwallybaby – have you no honor or decency at long last? Oh, that’s right. We here at TP know from experience that you have none what so ever. tsk tsk tsk.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:29 am#1 thru #6 say it better than I can.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:30 amAnyone that suggests this one party government is the least bit concerned about the safety of it’s people is blowing blue buttermilk in a high gale. They are nothing but organized crime currently involved in the biggest score of their sickening lives. If you think they created the Patriot Act to help protect you, then you probably think Saddam had a nuke gunned for your house and the invasion of Iraq is making the U.S.A. a safer place to be.
I don’t know. The Patriot Act could come in handy after we take back both the House and Senate in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Then we can use it to harass and weaken, arrest and jail right wing extremists and eliminate the radical elements of the right wing. We can send them to Gitmo or rendition to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Or just render them down into pigfat. There won’t be a damn thing the SCOTUS can or will do, not quickly enouugh to save them.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:35 amkindness has no honor or decency.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:38 am[...] Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote a very good post over at Think Progress. I highly suggest you go and give it a read. I can’t stress to you any more than I already have how important this issue is to you and I. When the time came to write a compromise bill in the House-Senate conference, the Bush Administration and congressional conservatives reverted again to unilateralism, closing the doors to conferees with whom they disagreed. The bill they produced is far less balanced than the Senate bill. [...]
December 14th, 2005 at 10:41 amkindness has no honor or decency.
Comment by wwallace
You know, I think that is a basic tenet of conservative thought and practice. “Kindness has no honor, value, purpose or decency.” It’s a “liberal thing” to find honor and decency in kindness.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:42 amAnd here you have it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
December 14th, 2005 at 10:44 amIt’s a liberal thing to lie about the Patriot act, apparently.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:45 amLook at all those Republicans working with Senator Leahy. That’s why I have some hope. Quite a few real conservatives find the Patriot Act to be very troubling. I really think many moderate Republicans are secretly hoping for a major political realignment and shift to a Democratic majority in 2006. It will give them the cover they need to give Bush that “et tu Brute” moment he’s got coming.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:50 am#2…unbelievable…where did you get that liberal crap,that sounds like pre-terror hippie dreams.
But on a serious note, this administration, and those who support it do not not take in to account the constitution, magna carta, geneova convention, or any other historical standards when making decisions. They focus exclusively on there off-shore accounts and how to ensure there steady growth for future generations to determine any decisions.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:54 amQ: What’s left when to own when you have endebited the country and stripped the citizens of any rights?
A: The country. I don’t know about anyone else, but around my office there are rules on how to dress, what to say, and how to spend your time (besides blogging). That is the control this administration wants while they in their corporate offices gobble up any and all profits made!
More troubles for Tom.
If they could just sneak in and get the evidence they wanted when they wanted it… I suppose they just never think it’s going to happen to them.
Prosecutor Issues Subpoenas in DeLay Case
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment;_ylt=AgwCvEDamxYl6SV7UM0NXsayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA–
December 14th, 2005 at 10:55 amMost of you didn’t live through the 60’s or the Viet Nam war. This is nothing new to us old timers. We were really under threat of armageddon and nuclear attack in those days. Not like this phony fear mongering today. Although there was an element of that then, but this is completely contrived.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:58 amI look around in horror at what my country has become. Is this the United States of America? It doesn’t look like it to me. Since when do we allow fear of terrorist attacks to drive us to strip ourselves of basic civil liberties? It’s idiotic. If I wanted to live in a country where the government can spy on you because you are a peace activist, then I’d move. If I wanted to live in a country where you don’t have the right to check certain books out of the library without being flagged as a terrorist, then I’d move. If I wanted to live in a country where I couldn’t freely disagree with an administration gone haywire without being labeled a terrorist sympathizer, then I’d move.
I’m still here because I have hope that the American people will stop being ashamed to stand up for their rights. The Patriot Act isn’t being used to bring terrorists to justice. It’s being used to stifle dissent and spy on political enemies. Our country is better than this.
We are stuck in this situation because there are no checks and balances in this administration. The executive branch (Pres) feels like they are a monarchy that don’t have to cooperate with or respect the legislative and judicial branches. This is absurd. Since when does a sitting president have the authority to DEMAND things of congress? Since when does the president get to decide how long congress takes to debate before passing a law? It’s high time that Congress stands up and does its job. BTW, the job of Congress is not to be an extension of the WH. They are a separate entity elected to office to represent the people of their districts, not the president’s lackeys. They need to start acting like it.
*Jumping down from my soapbox*
December 14th, 2005 at 10:59 am#2…unbelievable…where did you get that liberal crap,that sounds like pre-terror hippie dreams.
No, it’s just personal experience. I lived in a major city (Milwaukee, WI) several years ago. Police there were (and no doubt still are) totally out of control. There were cases where they gunned down helpless “suspects”, sometimes even caught on video. Detainees quite often died in police custody. Friends of mine who were political activists got harrassed by police for obviously bogus reasons.
Not all police there were corrupt, probably only a small minority were, but the department and administration consistently looked the other way and stonewalled people trying to get justice.
As for “pre-terror,” not all of us are terrified. Perhaps you could try not to be.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:11 amBut #15, they don’t intend to quit power quite quietly. What do you think they really need those powers for, anyway? Terrorists?
December 14th, 2005 at 11:12 amIs this Part of the So-Called Patriot ACT?!!!!!
By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Updated: 11:37 p.m. ET Dec. 13, 2005
December 14th, 2005 at 11:23 amTeams of undercover air marshals and uniformed law enforcement officers will fan out to bus and train stations, ferries, and mass transit facilities across the country this week in a new test program to conduct surveillance and “counter potential criminal terrorist activity in all modes of transportation,” according to internal federal documents.
If Thats PATRIOT
December 14th, 2005 at 11:25 am#1 & #25 Well said.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:27 amIf Thats PATRIOT , THEN I DONT WANT OR NEED IT!
December 14th, 2005 at 11:28 am#10 – My comments directed at you on #13 have some historical importance that applies to your statements here.
Give me the actual speaker of the quote I paraphrased and give me who he was speaking to. I’ll give you a hint, it was out of the 50’s, you can google it, it fit’s you to a T.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:28 amTrash it. It’s unnecessary and an illegal end run around the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act will only hasten the irrelevancy of Congress and the Courts and usher in an era of the Imperial Presidency…a complete evisceration of the Republic.
DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE PATRIOT ACT. BURN IT SHITCAN IT, DUMP IT IN THE NEAREST TOXIC WASTE DUMP. (My apologies to toxic waste)
December 14th, 2005 at 11:34 amGood posts all, especialy #33. I agree…..Blessings
December 14th, 2005 at 11:53 amI agree, Senator. This so-called Legislation may try to rein in terrorists and bring them to justice, but it does not safeguard our hard-earned liberties.
We don’t want any innocent by-standers in harm’s way, just like it is when police deal with a serious crime such as robbery.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:50 pmGary, I was goofing on the constitution posted in #2…the police situation here in greater phoenix is similar to your experiencesin Milwaukee…as for pre/post terror – I was scared of Washington before 9-11 and still am now, they’ll harm more citizens then terrorist can ever dream of!..how can you try not to be terrified?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:01 pmSenator Leahy,
Excellent article, and right on the money.
You don’t seem to be so easily buffaloed like some of your colleagues by this right wing extremism, and I wish we could hear more from you.
The Patriot act itself, is a questionable act. It is a knee jerk reaction to a terrible event and not at all necessary in my view to protecting our freedoms.
Shortly after 911, Bin Laden told us in a video, that the freedoms we enjoy will be taken away by our own hands, because of our fear and cowardice.
Now why would we want to work so hard to make him right?
Hitler used his “Enabling Act” in very much the same way, and sold it in exactly the same way. Taking away liberties and freedoms, eating away at our rights to privacy, all this in the name of making us safe?
Since when did Americans become such sissies, that they are willing to give up their freedoms for fear of being hurt?
Another great Patriot, Pat Henry, once said to the Virginia Assembly, “give me liberty, or give me death”.
But it would seem the cry of the new patriot today is, “take away any of my liberties you need Mr. President, just please don’t let me get hurt”.
Not very brave sounding, is it?
Senator Leahy, if you read this I thank you. I support your efforts, and I applaud your conviction. I think you are a good man, and men like you now are our last good hopes.
Godspeed Senator.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:02 pmP.S
What’s with the milk and cookies with Nancy Pelosi?
You guys do make a good looking couple though ;}
December 14th, 2005 at 1:05 pm“One of my favorite uses of the Patriot Act was when I pushed through the Texas redistricting. You see, those pesky Democrats tried to stall me by hidin’, but I used the FBI to catch ‘um. Works like a charm.” Memoirs of Tom DeLay
December 14th, 2005 at 1:26 pmI was goofing on the constitution posted in #2…
OK, I guess my sarcasm detector needs a tune-up. :)
as for pre/post terror – I was scared of Washington before 9-11 and still am now, they’ll harm more citizens then terrorist can ever dream of!..how can you try not to be terrified?
Being scared is perfectly understandable… just don’t let it keep us from fighting back.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:31 pmUnfortunately we have an administration that uses fear as a tool to manipulate the people and the patriot act is one of the end results of this fear. Ever since 911 we’ve needed a president who would say something appropriate such as “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. Instead we have moron dumbya who uses fear to his advantage to promote an immoral war, to promote torture and to take away civil liberties.
Fear=Hate
Hate=War
War=Killing, Suffering, Torture, etc.
Enough fear already.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:39 pm#10,
December 14th, 2005 at 1:52 pmLie:
To make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.
To create a false or misleading impression.
Opinion:
A view, judgment or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
A generally held view.
A conclusion thought out, yet open to dispute.
When Party A disagrees with Party B, it doesn’t mean Party A is a liar. It means Party B is ignorantly employing ad hominem attacks.
Most thinking people agree with Sen. Leahy, however, a few cretins may disagree. They have a right to disagree, the poor souls, unable to think clearly.
We take pity on them in their ignorance and though we may try to enlighten them, they prefer to remain in the dark.
I appreciate all of your efforts, Sen Leahy.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:59 pmI hope you print out these comments and use some of them in your negotiations with other officials. Maybe if they see that the people are really against this they might stand up a bit more.
You might also want to point out to these people that the person fighting hardest to keep the Patriot Act is the man who is KNOWN to have called the Constitution “… a godd*mn piece of paper.”
P.S. “Just say NO” to Alito….
December 14th, 2005 at 1:59 pmWell I guess the House ain’t listening.
They just renewed the Patriot Act.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:10 pmDear senator, the terrorists are terrible people to have done what they have done, the violence they have done; we can all agree about that, but that is not all that the terrorists have done. Not just their violence. Terrorists intimidated the USA into a place of unconstitutional uproar, and it is your job, senator, and the job of your peers on the hill to NOT allow the terrorists’ influence cause the ultimate destruction of good old fashioned American mainstream RELIGIOUS FREEDOM for us law-abiding, mainstream American citizens (ie, Bible-believing protestants). There needs to be balance. The war on violence needs to respect the law-abiding majority’s personal PRIVACY rights…and PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP rights. If the war on terrorism disrespects these fundamentals of American freedom, then what will the war on terrorism grow into? A free-for-all (communism) (fascism) etc.? Because it’s starting to look that way. No wonder the public expresses concern about the war. I’m very glad not to be a politician. Your job must be a drag sometimes. Have a nice day.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:27 pm“The Bush’s Administration’s tendencies to unilateralism – aided and abetted by conservative leaders in Congress – have produced some of the worst decisions, scandals and excesses of the last four years.â€
When a senator starts off his post with a lie, it’s not a good sign.
Stop playing politics with US national security, senator.
Comment by wwallace — December 14, 2005
wwallace,
December 15th, 2005 at 9:27 amSTILL IN WONDERLAND.
A worthy link for the debate:
Pentagon admits keeping database on US civilians deemed suspicious – Yahoo
December 15th, 2005 at 9:49 amPentagon admits keeping database on US civilians deemed suspicious
December 15th, 2005 at 9:51 amEvil #’s 48 and 49,
That’s old news. This has been going on since old cross dressing J. Edgar (it’s a shame one of our top law enforcement public buildings in D.C. is named for that racist, psuedohomophobic, hypocrite). The Chicago seven, Black Panthers and cointelpro (counter intelligence program) were the benchmarks of radical domestic intelligence gathering by our DOJ (an oxymoron if there ever was one!)
December 15th, 2005 at 11:27 amDear Senator Leahy – If you actually take the time to read the posts at this blog you might notice the recurring fear many “progressives” have today – specifically – they view conservatives and fascists as one in the same. My question to them (when they quit foaming at the mouth) is this, “If the fascism you allege were true, why are you still here?? I would think you would find uyour collective selves in a camp by now.”
December 15th, 2005 at 8:16 pm#6 – “We need International cooperation, not the foreign policy of imperialism.” – toys
December 15th, 2005 at 8:24 pm*****toys, stop regurgitating the lefty line – imperialism is occupying (acquiring) a country – (see the examples provided by the former British Empire, the Soviet Union, etc.) From what I’ve been able to gleen, we plan on leaving when Iraqi security can be reasonably well-maintained.
Puny hermaphrodite#’s 51 and 52,
Progressives are the REAL American patriots and you facist right wingers are outnumbered, that is why you haven’t established any camps. if you could by god you would. but be careful attempting to do what you aren’t equipped to do- think out loud- as you might give someone an idea of what Americans might need to do with our “right wing facist” problem. The civil war is just begging for closure!
hahahah, leaving Iraq! After building a $600 million dollar embassy, $500 million dollar military bases ringing the place, spending an overall total of somewhere in the neighborhood of $2-300 billion, and L’il Dick and his energy boys having staked out the iraq map oil territory, we ain’t goin’ nowhere l’il Missy!
December 16th, 2005 at 9:02 amHere’s a tidbit for all you red state Bushites that you might find interesting. I was summarily banned (without explanation)from the redstate.org site for posting contrarian views to the posts on that site. I violated no posting rules, and in fact offered some very civil and (I’d say) sanguine points and remarks.
My point is this, right wing red state Bush worshipping inbreds are welcomed with open arms (with some mild criticisms of their contrarian views) on Progressive sites. They are seldom banned and certainly NOT for presenting their points of view within the posting rules, yet the reverse is not true. Bushites fear TRUTH on their “group think” sites. They are afraid that a ray of sunshine might ruin their mushroom crops!
hmmmm
December 16th, 2005 at 10:16 ampolice custody
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pmOnline Cash Advance
Quickest loan program for online cash advance nationwide.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pmPayday Loan Faxless
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 pm