Patriot Act Renewal Debate Kicks Off Over Party Lines

By
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 6:00 am
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) (WDCpix)

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) (WDCpix)

Eight years after it was passed, the USA Patriot Act remains among the most controversial pieces of counterterrorism legislation in the so-called “war on terror.” On December 31 of this year, some of its more controversial provisions will expire, forcing Congress to revisit it and decide whether to reauthorize the expiring provisions, amend them, or re-work the entire law.

The sections set to expire give the government the authority to access business records, operate roving wiretaps and conduct surveillance on “lone wolf” suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. A justice Department official last week told Congress that the Obama administration supports their renewal. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Senator Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.) that the administration would consider stronger civil rights protections “provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions).”

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, it was clear that Democrats don’t uniformly support the White House on that. Some Democrats on the committee were still bitter that some Republicans back in 2001 had pushed aside a bipartisan version of the bill produced by the Judiciary Committee in favor of a version substantially revised and altered by the Rules Committee, led by then-chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.).

“Then-Chairman Dreier under Lord knows whose instructions, substituted that bill for another bill, that we at judiciary had never seen. So we come here today now to consider what we do with those parts that are expiring” and that, according to committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), created problems that the bill he’d approved would have prevented.

“We held in this committee five days of markup and achieved unanimity on the Patriot Act,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) echoed later in the hearing. “Then the bill just disappeared. And we had a new several hundred page bill revealed from the Rules Committee” that had to be voted on the next day, before most members of Congress even had a chance to read it, said Nadler.

The fight over the bill appears to be as partisan today as ever. At the House hearing, Democrats and their witnesses warned that provisions of the law that allow “roving wiretaps” of different communications devices used by unnamed suspects, or electronic surveillance of suspects with no affiliation to known terrorist organizations, violate constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. And a “gag order” provision of the bill, they complained, violate the First Amendment by preventing the recipient of an FBI-issued National Security Letter, which can request customer information from businesses, from disclosing to their customers that the information was requested.

While Democrats in the House yesterday cast these provisions as unnecessary and abusive, Republicans deemed them critical to national security.

“We must not be lulled into a false sense of security,” warned Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). “The threat remains high,” he added, and proceeded to list about a half a dozen terrorist plots that were either carried out or planned but foiled by the FBI since September 11, 2001, including the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and the thwarting of what he called a “plot to kill U.S. soldiers at the Fort Dix Army base” in 2007.

But several witnesses, such as Suzanne Spaulding, a national security lawyer and former staff director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, testified that parts of the law such as the “lone wolf” provision, which allows the FBI to monitor suspects with no connection to foreign terrorist organizations, “undermines the policy and constitutional justification for the entire [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] statute. “This extraordinary departure from the Fourth Amendment’s warrant standards is justified only in investigation of foreign powers or their agents,” she said. The “lone wolf” provision would allow the government to spy an someone suspected of participating in terrorism but where the evidence is not strong enough to meet the stricter standards for obtaining a regular warrant from an ordinary federal court.

Michael German, a former FBI agent and now policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that the FBI inspector general himself in 2007 concluded that the Patriot Act had been abused. Section 505 of the Act increased the number of officials who could authorize national security letters, seeking private information about certain businesses’ customers, reduced the standard necessary to obtain information with them, to the point where information could be collected about people who are not even suspected of having done anything wrong, testified German.

Even with such broad latitude, German testified, the Inspector general reports “confirmed widespread FBI mismanagement, misuse and abuse of these Patriot Act authorities.” The inspector general reported that the FBI’s record-keeping was so poor it didn’t know how many national security lettesr it had issued, and it often sought private information that it was not entitled to.

“Most troubling, FBI supervisors used hundreds of illegal “exigent letters” to obtain telephone records without national security letters by falsely claiming emergencies,” German added in written testimony submitted to the subcommittee on Tuesday.

And Thomas Evans, a former Republican Congressman from Delaware testified on behalf of the bipartisan Constitution Project that the section of the Act allowing the FBI to issue National Security Letters without a court order and accompanied by gag orders creates “great potential for abuse.” Last week the Constitution Project sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, signed by 26 policy experts across the political spectrum, seeking major reforms to the Patriot Act.

On Tuesday, Todd Hinnen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division of the Justice Department testified that many of the problems identified by the Inspector General and others have been solved. “Since that time, FBI has put in a new data subsystem governing those [national security letters],” he said, adding that the National Security Division of the Justice Department has increased its oversight and Congress and the Inspector General retain their oversight authority.

Hinnen testified further that the expiring Patriot Act provisions were absolutely necessary tools for law enforcement to pursue terror suspects. “We feel that these are very important investigative authorities and that it would be very unfortunate to allow them to lapse. The administration firmly supports renewal before December 31 so there’s no gap in the investigative abilities of the government.”

Conyers was not impressed. “You sound like a lot of people from DOJ that have come over here before, and yet you’ve only been there a few months,” he said, after Hinnen said he started in the job on January 21. “Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?” Conyers asked. As Hinnen hesitated, Conyers added: “You don’t have to respond to that.”

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its own hearing on the Patriot Act. That promises to be equally contentious. Already, several senators have introduced bills to reauthorize and amend expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, although there’s already evidence of disagreement among Senators on the same side of the aisle.

Last week, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), with co-sponsorship from Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced a bill to narrow the Patriot Act, called The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts Act, or the JUSTICE Act. The Act would amend not just the expiring provisions but would add protections for privacy civil liberties in each section fo the Patriot Act and other surveillance laws. It would also repeal the retroactive immunity granted to telecommunications companies included in the FISA Amendments Act passed last year.

The Obama administration has supported and defended in court this immunity for telecom companies.

A bill introduced on Tuesday by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Ted Kaufmann (D-Md.), does not repeal the immunity provision, and makes more modest amendments to the Patriot Act. It extends all three of the provisions set to expire this year, but expands reporting requirements to allow Congress to monitor how the administration is using the law.

Comments

61 Comments

Dateline Special Report | Ed Icionsub « What’s Popular?
Pingback posted September 23, 2009 @ 6:18 am

[...] The Washington Independent » Debate Over Patriot Act Renewal Kicks … [...]


Irish_Wake
Comment posted September 23, 2009 @ 1:17 pm

Ms. Eviatar: Please remember this is not the Patriot Act. This is the US PATRIOT Act, an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

All: This Act is 8 years old, has been used as cover for various illegal acts both civil & commercial (we are still discussing immunity), and it is so flawed that today I read “many of the problems identified by the Inspector General and others have been solved.”
I understand that one never wants to see sausage or laws being made. But this is a bill that is a proven threat to the civil liberties of American citizens. Congress should analyse the goals of this act, retain the portions that are useful, and remove those that are objectionable to liberty.


zabaron
Comment posted September 23, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

Leahy is an able statesman, and Cardin and Kaufmann are also some of Congress' brightest “bulbs.” The answer – let all these messy Bush-originated sections expire and refer back to what was drawn up before, and amend the current act with those sections that would fit in and fix things. If it truly is “FUBAR,” trash the whole damned act. The idea of spying on your own people is what drove people to leave Europe and found the U.S. in the first place, so I am sure the founding fathers would definitely not approve of this disgusting law, which is nothing more than a poor excuse to exert more control and reduce personal freedom in an offesive and definitely unconstitutional way.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 23, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

When you empower, expect resistance when its time to reign 'em in.
Patriot Act—stick a fork in it


The Daily Reviewer
Comment posted September 24, 2009 @ 5:51 am

Hi!

Congratulations! Your readers have submitted and voted for your blog at The Daily Reviewer. We compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 real estate Blogs, and we are glad to let you know that your blog was included! You can see it at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/real-estate/3

You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award here : http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges/real-e…

P.S. This is a one-time notice to let you know your blog was included in one of our Top 100 Blog categories. You might get notices if you are listed in two or more categories.

P.P.S. If for some reason you want your blog removed from our list, just send an email to angelina@thedailyreviewer.com with the subject line “REMOVE” and the link to your blog in the body of the message.

Cheers!

Angelina Mizaki
Selection Committee President
The Daily Reviewer
http://thedailyreviewer.com


dprosenthal
Comment posted September 24, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

When this was first passed, I completely endorsed it, trusting that our gov't would scrupulously protect the rights of honest Americans while protecting the country from more terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, I am no longer sure that my assumption was correct, not under the current administration, which seems to be replacing our original form of government with absolute rule by a bunch of unvetted and unelected czars


Franken Reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department Official | The Accidental Patriot
Pingback posted September 24, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

[...] Judiciary Committee hearing has so far proceeded much the way yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing did, with Democrats (except the Justice Department witness) expressing skepticism that the current law [...]


Irish_Wake
Comment posted September 24, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

Sir, this is precisely what the founding fathers warned us about. Rights are not protected by governments; rights are messy, inefficient things that make it difficult to govern. Rights are protected by informed, vigilant citizens. This legislation harmed American citizens by denying them their Constitutional rights. I can't help but notice that your support is contingent on political control, instead of Constitutional principles. Withdrawing support of this legislation for political reasons instead of concern over its use to deny American citizens their rights is a grim commentary on what has happened to the shining city on the hill.


Jennifer E Elliott
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 12:06 am

http://fora.tv/2007/07/31/Bob_Barr_American_Fre…
The Constitutional Scholars explain all illegal abuse and are now calling for full blown commission.


rogelioraugysalcido
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 12:34 am

sounds like the lone wolf provision is a bunch of bullshit! I hope im not on it?????


Patrick
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

George W. Bush had more unvetted and unelected czars than President Obama. How did you feel about those czars? Were they ok because you elected for Bush?


Adam
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSXMW2FMC7A

Above clip is of Russ Feingold highlighting some of the problems. He notes that in 2008, there were 763 requests made for “sneak and peek” warrants, when only 3 of those were for terrorism-related cases.

This “sneak and peek” warrant is one where your house can be searched and you will never hear about it.


dprosenthal
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

No, that isn't OK with me either, but at least most of them didn't have
criminal or terrorist, or even anti-American backgrounds.


Patrick
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

Is that because they matched your point of view? I consider Bush and company anti-American and terrorists based on their loyalty to Bush (he did allow 9/11 after all!). Bush is the biggest terrorist on this earth! And, I bet if you go back and do background checks on his Czars, you will find discressions on most of them. I find it interesting that Bushies allow him and his people to have shady backgrounds and forgive them because time has gone by and they changed, but not the Obama folks.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

dprosenthal translated into english: “When GW tore up the Bill o' Raghts and used it fer toilet payper I was too busy watchin' Jerry Spranger ta care. Plus, Dub talks alot like me an he's a good ol' texas boy so I trusted him no matter wut the traitor-dems said. Oh & that belly-achin' ACLU. Sheeeeit! They said Dub & Dick was buildin' an imperial presidency, what with warrantless wire-tappin' & expanded powers & such. I said, so what it's not like he cares when me & Chuck Norris build shrines to lil' Timmie McVeigh.Those little babies in the Oklahoma City Fed Building was just gonna grow up to be uppity & on welfare anyways. So imagine my dismay when I found out that Dub & Dick weren't gonna git ta keep them powers, they was gonna turn them over to a-to a- to a,————————————–Kenyan Muslim!!!!!!!!!!!”


dprosenthal
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 12:29 am

chrisjay;your response was so mature and intellectually stimulating that I'm
going to print it out and have it framed. People who actually care about
this country don't give a damn about the color of Obama's skin or who he
worships, they're afraid of his socialistic ideals and his egomania.


Irish_Wake
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 2:33 am

Criminal or terrorist, or even anti-American?

Hello, irony.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

This preoccupation with Czars is about as intelligent as the Birfer gibberish. Czar is just shorthand for senior policy advisor. The extra-chromosome crowd on the trailerpark right is so thick that they have been easily led to perceive the term in some sinister light. As for egomania, how dare you cast aspersions on MY maturity, rosenthal. I saw one of your fellow-travelers attempt to spell narcissist on a parallel thread in his screed against the President; you are but two of the sheep being stuffed week in & week out with the latest Beck/Rush/Fox talking point and this meme about Obama's alleged egomania/narcissism is among the most juvenile of all of the lame attempts we've seen yet to tar the President with some tag which might actually stick.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

The lefties in the ACLU and elsewhere (who you seem to hold in such low regard) have been warning about this for years; why the sudden concern? Better late than never, I guess


Irish_Wake
Comment posted September 27, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Yes, Mr. Jay did go overboard. I believe he was employing sarcasm in the same vein as Saturday Night Live. It was a bit heavy-handed, but not without humor. A little humor is a welcome thing in these discussions.
I find your care for this country based more on expediency than on the Constitution. You 'completely endorse' one 'trusted' party to operate outside of Constitutional limits. When hard evidence shows that the State denies innocent American citizens their Constitutional rights, you seem untroubled. Yet when a typical power shift occurs, your support evaporates. This is why the rule of law, not men is important.
I see the American system at a crossroads; as Wm. T. Gossett said “The rule of law can be wiped out in one misguided, however well-intentioned, generation.”


dprosenthal
Comment posted September 27, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

Great points. My original endorsements were based, in great part, on fear
after 9/11, when I was willing to step on the rights of suspected terrorists
for the sake of security. While I agree this is a slippery slope to be
avoided, I don't think we can protect our country w/out employing some
covert methods of investigation, etc. Can we trust the people in the highest
level of govt to exert enough protective controls to prevent abuse? I don't
know but I am afraid we must take the gamble. And yes, my attitude did
change with the advent of the new administration. I do not have confidence
in Mr. Obama's experience in world affairs or his willingness to heed the
advice of others if it doesn't conform to some party agenda. I believed his
campaign rhetoric and am greatly disappointed in the reality of his actions
and words so far.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

The Patriot Act was W's Enabling Act, aided by the Military Commissions Act. Osama Van Der Lubbe, are you in the house?


Adam
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

I've been a member of the ACLU for 10 years. . .


Irish_Wake
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:14 pm

You touch on one of my greatest fears – valuing your rights so cheaply. This legislation did not 'step on the rights of suspected terrorists' and barely addresses intelligence gathering by approving unnamed methods. This legislation applies to every citizen. This is no clichéd slippery slope; the purpose of this legislation was to negate protective controls, some of which were put in place because of presidential abuse of power. Amendments 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 were actively ignored by the executive branch when dealing with your innocent countrymen; some of these abuses because citizens were not conforming to the party agenda.
If I may bore you with another quote, Thomas Jefferson spoke to this issue, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”


monkey99
Comment posted October 25, 2009 @ 7:45 am

The whole thing is crap. How do you prosecute a war on a synonym? How about legislation associated with the previous question?

Scaring the heck out of America for what? To curtail civil liberties for the sake of a synonym is insanity. I think after eight years it's finally sunk in with some. Saying the Patriot Act saved lives is the biggest lie.

The Bush Administration tried unsuccessfully to change the economic situation here, for the worse, for the middle-class. Can you say dissolution? Think I'm off-base? Who is the most at risk, right now? If we had another four years of the Repub nonsense, they would be gone. Then it's the haves, and have-nots. Sounds like dictatorship to me.

So all you Repubs….like it or not, the Patriot Act is becoming anachronistic for good reason. It should never have been enacted in the first place.


Secret reports, Secret budgets, Secret operations, Secret courts … A Secret Government! by Sibel Edmonds « Dandelion Salad
Pingback posted December 14, 2009 @ 1:17 pm

[...] 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to [...]


The Makings of a Police State-Part IV « Norcaltruth
Pingback posted December 14, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

[...] 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to [...]


A Secret Government - The Freedom Rider
Pingback posted December 15, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

[...] 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to [...]


A Secret but All Knowing Government: The Government that knows everything about us makes sure we know nothing about it; and that is why Barack Obama’s citizenship is such a sinister issue: the government that lives by its secrets will probably die b
Pingback posted December 16, 2009 @ 10:44 pm

[...] 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to [...]


Secret reports, Secret budgets, Secret operations, Secret courts … A Secret Government!
Pingback posted December 17, 2009 @ 11:53 am

[...] 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to [...]


Cutlem
Comment posted April 2, 2010 @ 10:52 am

Great News! Thank You Very Much.


cheap mbt shoes
Comment posted May 8, 2010 @ 7:46 am

Thanks for you share the article.Good!


Secret Reports, Secret Budgets, Secret Operations, Secret Courts … a Secret Government! « COTO Report
Pingback posted May 8, 2010 @ 9:08 pm

[...] 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to [...]


nike shox
Comment posted May 25, 2010 @ 6:42 am

Good.post.I like it.


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it!


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

so cool!


lug nuts
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 9:27 am

useful . thanks for sharing wheel bolt


cheap nike shoes
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

thanks for sharing !


lug nuts
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 1:50 am

lug nuts ,
wheel bolt,
titanium lug nuts


jordan shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 3:25 am

This is a pretty good article!


Smartxiaoge
Comment posted June 22, 2010 @ 12:55 am

hugvh


nike air max shoe
Comment posted July 2, 2010 @ 10:43 am

The Obama administration has supported
http://www.mbtshoeslatest.com


louis vuitton bag
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 6:21 am

Scaring the heck out of America for what? To curtail civil liberties for the sake of a synonym is insanity. I think after eight years it's finally sunk in with some. Saying the Patriot Act saved lives is the biggest lie.


lachou
Comment posted July 7, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

nfl jerseys nba mlb nhl http://www.jerseysky.com
puma shoes http://www.cheapsaleing.com


nike shoes
Comment posted July 12, 2010 @ 7:38 am

thies is very good


jordan shoes
Comment posted July 12, 2010 @ 7:40 am

i like this news


Louis Vuitton
Comment posted July 20, 2010 @ 11:33 am

yeah, so good!


lv handbags
Comment posted July 20, 2010 @ 11:39 am

55


cheap christian louboutin
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 7:45 am

This is my first time i visit here. I found so many entertaining stuff in your blog, especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! Keep up the excellent work.


burberry watches
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 7:46 am

Excellent site, keep up the good work my colleagues would love this. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks


christian louboutin boots
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 7:46 am

This is all very new to me and this article really opened my eyes.Thanks for sharing with us your wisdom.


louis vuitton
Comment posted August 5, 2010 @ 4:03 am

Excellent site, keep up the good work my colleagues would love this. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks


gucci handbag
Comment posted August 16, 2010 @ 11:31 am

Great country^_^


Discount Louis Vuitton
Comment posted August 20, 2010 @ 8:08 am

I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! Keep up the excellent work.


gucci 241097
Comment posted September 2, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

so good! I like this!


vampire diaries season 2
Comment posted September 17, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

The idea of spying on your own people is what drove people to leave Europe and found the U.S. in the first place, so I am sure the founding fathers would definitely not approve of this disgusting law, which is nothing more than a poor excuse to exert more control and reduce personal freedom in an offesive and definitely unconstitutional way.


Jordan11
Comment posted October 29, 2010 @ 3:07 am

Freedom , go go………..


gamezway
Comment posted November 3, 2010 @ 7:42 am

This is interesting, though it’s not at all intuitive at first glance. I would love to see it,gamezway.com save you time in finding all of these directories, Perhaps this is too complicated to draw… it would be neat, though. Cheers…


Another Blog Title
Trackback posted May 16, 2011 @ 8:17 am

{Thank you very much|Thanks to you|Thanks}. {I am|I’m|I will be|We are|My business is|We’re|Now i’m|I am just|My organization is|I’m certainly|My group is|I’m sure|Now i am|I’m just|What i’m|So i am|What i am|I happen to be|Quite possibly|My c…

I do not believe that you should be carrying around loincloths made of dingo skin,wholesale jordan a lot we’ve been in a position decide. As early as we realize it’s genuinely worth sorting out, it is really exceptional….


xuejiao wen
Comment posted May 26, 2011 @ 9:55 am

We have all been fond of office 2007 professional plus furniture haven’t we? With ms windows 7  designs available in all parts of Windows 7 Ultimate, Internet is one medium to choose the best Cheap Windows 7 at competitive prices and that too at a store near your Office 2010 Professional. Below http://hohosoftware.wordpress.com summarize some Microsoft Office 2010 to help you choose the best Office 2007 Enterprise for your corporate as well as office 2007 product key : Generally, while http://hohosoftware.blogspot.com are searching Office 2007 Key, we just type in our window 7  and start browsing the http://peaksoftwares.blogspot.com which appear in the Microsoft Office 2007 Enterprise. But here is the Cheap Windows 7 : most of the searches we do without specifying a location with the purchase windows 7 , we end up wasting our time. Let http://peaksoftwares.wordpress.com take an example of windows 7 download . Now people go to Google and type “Windows 7 Ultimate ” and start browsing the Buy Windows 7 . They spend a lot of time finalizing Download Windows 7  but when they decide to contact the Win 7  for the price quotes and delivery time, they generally end up realizing that the Microsoft Windows 7  from which they had selected the Windows 7 , belongs to a different country and the buy microsoft office 2007 cannot export to a their Windows 7 Professional. The simple solution to Windows 7 Professional  would have been, assuming that the Buy Windows 7 buyer resides in India, to search for the keyword “Microsoft Windows 7 India” or “Windows 7 Home Premium  in India” instead of the keyword “Download Office 2010” because when the buyer searched for “buy office 2007”, sites from different countries showed up, microsoft office professional 2010 plus might have had good designs Office 2007 download were not available in window 7 but they were of no use. The purchase windows 7 advantage of using a location such as Office 2007 Ultimate, in case it suits the buyers, office professional 2007 plus can go and checkout their Office 2007 Key and maybe get a better design microsoft office downloads has recently become popular but is not ms office 2007 professional on the website.


3270914
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

3270914 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.