Can the administration be this naive?...Or think we are?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 16, 2004, 6:39 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Marb,

Besides the one or two people that were exposed on all the networks, who are the many people being held w/o being charged? How many people have been "found out" as a result of the new patriot act? Where are the numbers to justify this outrage? People on these boards constantly mention the tons of people being held w/o representatiion and w/o being charged, but how do you know? And more importantly, how many terrorists were found out by doing this? Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

My America was founded on sacrifice, not unabashed, unwatched, unrelenting freedom to do as we please. Anarchy isn't what got us here today in the short 238 years since we started America. Sweat, blood, tears, and sacrifice.

Guess what the founding fathers were?
The fouding fathers were LIBERALS, the epitomy of liberals at that.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 6:41 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Vetiria wrote:Because they're prisoners of war, they should be held for however long Bush feels like keeping them there without charging them? The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect AMERICAN citizens.

You have this bleeding heart for the fucking guys who were shooting at our American soldiers but not for the millions of Iraqi's who were killed by Saddam, tortured, and held down for decades.

Typical liberal bullshit with your SELECTIVE care. Your SELECTIVE concern for people. You make me sick.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights, not only citizens. That's just about the most Un-American thing I've ever heard. Go away terrorist.

.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Ok, so the Constitution of let's say Italy is there to protect human rights all around the world?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 16, 2004, 6:44 pm

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 16, 2004, 6:46 pm

Are we talking about Italy? No. We are talking about the US. I have no idea what the Constitution of other countries are like. Now answer my question: It's your opinion that if a person is not an American citizen, it's perfectly okay to lock them up forever without the ability to prove their innocence?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 16, 2004, 6:47 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Vetiria wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Vetiria wrote:Because they're prisoners of war, they should be held for however long Bush feels like keeping them there without charging them? The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect AMERICAN citizens.

You have this bleeding heart for the fucking guys who were shooting at our American soldiers but not for the millions of Iraqi's who were killed by Saddam, tortured, and held down for decades.

Typical liberal bullshit with your SELECTIVE care. Your SELECTIVE concern for people. You make me sick.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights, not only citizens. That's just about the most Un-American thing I've ever heard. Go away terrorist.

.
Hahahahahahahahahaha

Ok, so the Constitution of let's say Italy is there to protect human rights all around the world?

14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 16, 2004, 7:01 pm

Xzion wrote: Guess what the founding fathers were?
The fouding fathers were LIBERALS, the epitomy of liberals at that.

Many of them were liberals in the classical sense of the word. The more modern usage of liberal though has substantial differences with the classical liberal.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » March 16, 2004, 7:12 pm

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal(...)

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 16, 2004, 7:15 pm

But dude, camel jockeys aren't men!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 7:16 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal*(...)

*except those who put shrimp salad on hotdogs

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 7:19 pm

i dont think that the critics of the Patriot Act are principally concerned with how POWs from Afghanistan are processed in Guantanimo Bay.

it is more about what the US government is doing to US citizens who are alledged to have ties to terror groups.

Additionally, it is about law enforcement agencies using the enhanced powers they were given specifically to use only for fighting terrorism to do searches and seizures on persons who are accused of crimes completely unrelated to terror.

all this other stuff we are talking about is not central to the real issue of the Patriot Act.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 16, 2004, 8:28 pm

They are prisoners of war retard. They are not American citizens.

Now you just set yourself up bigtime. They are not classified as PoWs, if they were they would have rights. They are being kept without PoW status and without ANY rights.

You have this bleeding heart for the fucking guys who were shooting at our American soldiers but not for the millions of Iraqi's who were killed by Saddam, tortured, and held down for decades.

You do realize that the majority of prisoners on Guantanomo (sp) have:
1. Nothing to do with Iraq, Hussein etc.
2. Never fired a weapon at any American.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

Nope it does't.

Typical liberal bullshit with your SELECTIVE care. Your SELECTIVE concern for people. You make me sick.

Man I miss for the days when trailerparks didn't have internet connections..

It's a waste of time to discuss the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act with Midnyte since I doubt he has read either or has the intelligence to understand them. Of course, by his own words he "never travels to a large city or boards a plane" so that pretty much says it all.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 10:55 am

LOL

You are too cute. Because I don't travel on planes or drive into big cities that explains me? Too funny.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 11:09 am

Actually, after having read quite a few of your posts I would explain you as a bigoted, racist, narrowminded, gun-crazy, naive white trailer trash. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 11:19 am

Kelshara wrote:Actually, after having read quite a few of your posts I would explain you as a bigoted, racist, narrowminded, gun-crazy, naive white trailer trash. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Interesting how real you make your perceptions:

Bigoted? nope

Racist? nope

Narrowminded? not really, I like more infoz and continually adapt to new infoz, not new opinions.

Gun-Crazy? No, I am not a fan of guns at all. I don't own one. Will not own one.

Naive? I don't believe so, but then again we all are naive to what we do not know as truth yet.

White? Yes.

Trailer-Trash? nope sorry. Never lived in a trailer. I own a home that I work very hard to pay for to provide to my wife and children.

Continue with your personal attacks....Mr. Kerry.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 17, 2004, 11:23 am

Then quit acting like you're begin fed straight from Bush's tit and use your head.
I'm a bush supporter, but I don't believe everything he says.. sheesh.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 11:29 am

Akaran_D wrote:Then quit acting like you're begin fed straight from Bush's tit and use your head.
I'm a bush supporter, but I don't believe everything he says.. sheesh.

Neither do I Ak.

I just don't subscribe to this rampant hatred of this man. I don't particularly think he is a great president, just not as bad as he is made out to be and better than some other options.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 17, 2004, 2:22 pm

How would you characterize someone that supports locking people up indefinitely without due process?

Anyone who has blatantly ignored the Constitution like Bush and the administration has deserves blind hatred pointed at them. The same goes for anyone that supports those actions.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 2:31 pm

Vetiria wrote:How would you characterize someone that supports locking people up indefinitely without due process?

Anyone who has blatantly ignored the Constitution like Bush and the administration has deserves blind hatred pointed at them. The same goes for anyone that supports those actions.

I just don't see it that way. There is always exceptions to the rule. The world isn't cut and dry, black and white.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 17, 2004, 2:54 pm

You just don't get it. There is NO exception to the US Constitution. That's the whole point behind it--it's the final law of the land. Every law is supposed to be written to abide by the Constitution.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 2:59 pm

Vetiria wrote:You just don't get it. There is NO exception to the US Constitution. That's the whole point behind it--it's the final law of the land. Every law is supposed to be written to abide by the Constitution.

Activist judges have been making exceptions to the Consitution on a daily basis lately. /shrug

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 3:01 pm

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 3:03 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Vetiria wrote:How would you characterize someone that supports locking people up indefinitely without due process?

Anyone who has blatantly ignored the Constitution like Bush and the administration has deserves blind hatred pointed at them. The same goes for anyone that supports those actions.
I just don't see it that way. There is always exceptions to the rule. The world isn't cut and dry, black and white.

You don't even give an argument or back up your position. Do you even have a single thought running around in that slow brain of yours, or is it all "Fox News rule! Bush rules! Everybodye else die!"?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 3:06 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Vetiria wrote:How would you characterize someone that supports locking people up indefinitely without due process?

Anyone who has blatantly ignored the Constitution like Bush and the administration has deserves blind hatred pointed at them. The same goes for anyone that supports those actions.
I just don't see it that way. There is always exceptions to the rule. The world isn't cut and dry, black and white.
You don't even give an argument or back up your position. Do you even have a single thought running around in that slow brain of yours, or is it all "Fox News rule! Bush rules! Everybodye else die!"?

Ask me a direct question and I will gladly answer it. What position would you like me to back up? I believe I was countering someone elses position. But, please, go ahead and ask me a fucking question.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 3:10 pm

Vetira how has Bush trampled over the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And no, the Patriot Act doesn't count.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 3:12 pm

A question was asked you:

How would you characterize someone that supports locking people up indefinitely without due process?

And Brotha why wouldn't the Patriot Act count?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 3:21 pm

Kelshara wrote:A question was asked you:

How would you characterize someone that supports locking people up indefinitely without due process?

I'm sorry if you cannot grasp the answer I gave earlier.

There are exceptions. Read above for my full take on it, okay? So, I wouldn't make a characterization on Bush in this case, because the exception is justified.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 17, 2004, 3:23 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Activist judges have been making exceptions to the Consitution on a daily basis lately. /shrug

I will paypal you 50 dollars US for every example you provide of this.

an additional 100 dollars for an adequate explanation of "activist judge"

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 3:23 pm

Another direct question or more then since you don't want to write more than half a sentence: How can you justify it? What have they done to justify it? How hypocritical is it to go against everything the country is built on? How far towards a police state are you willing to go?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 17, 2004, 3:25 pm

Brotha wrote:Vetira how has Bush trampled over the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And no, the Patriot Act doesn't count.

the hell? it doesn't count? are you actually trying to debate something here?

okay fine name for me all the bad things osama bin laden has ever done, and terrorism doesn't count.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 17, 2004, 3:31 pm

Midnyte wrote:Activist judges have been making exceptions to the Consitution on a daily basis lately. /shrug

the phrase "activist judges" is right wing propaganda.

The GOP appoints "activist judges" just like the Democrats do. The GOP appoints judges with specific opinions on issues like abortion, so that the judges will rule on cases in such a fashion to pre-empt legislation. I know it doesnt make for good propaganda to say "we both play the game the same way", but that is the reality. I guess Sean Hannity didn't bring that point up during the Gay Marriage in Massachusetts flap.

Bush just appointed 3 judges while Congress was out of session who fall into this category. The appointments are only a year because congress did not approve them.

But Mid, even if "Activist Judges" are interpretting legislation...that is in fact CONSISTENT with the Constitution. It is the Judicial Branch of the government who checks the Legislature.

The recourse of Legislature is to change the law, or to amend the Constitution in extreme examples if it wishes to counter the judiciary.

Vetira how has Bush trampled over the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And no, the Patriot Act doesn't count.

Brotha, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you think you are having an argument with five year olds?

there is no reply to a statement that ridiculous. you need to do better if you are going to be a part of the conversation.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 3:37 pm

What? I wanted to know something substantial and I was pre-empting the automatic response of Ashcroft/Patriot Act.

If someone wants to respond with the name of a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the house and senate, has had an amount of exaggeration and propoganda directed at it that makes any of the conspiracy theories surrounding Halliburton pale in comparison, that hasn't had a single part of it found to be unconstitutional, then they can go for it but this doesn't exactly qualify as a "smoking gun" to me.

But fine, what part of the Patriot Act equates to Bush trampling on the Bill of Rights and Constitution?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 3:38 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Activist judges have been making exceptions to the Consitution on a daily basis lately. /shrug
I will paypal you 50 dollars US for every example you provide of this.

an additional 100 dollars for an adequate explanation of "activist judge"

Definition: (decent one anyway)

activist judges see their mission, not as upholding our Constitution, but as redefining it to coerce new behaviors on what they consider "a barbarian majority motivated by bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, irrational sexual morality, and the like."

Examples:

Judges marrying gay couples.

The judge who ruled the 10 commandments had to be removed from the courthouse.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 3:38 pm

What? I wanted to know something substantial and I was pre-empting the automatic response of Ashcroft/Patriot Act.

If someone wants to respond with the name of a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the house and senate, has had an amount of exaggeration, hysteria, and propoganda directed at it that makes any of the conspiracy theories surrounding Halliburton pale in comparison, that hasn't had a single part of it found to be unconstitutional, then they can go for it but this doesn't exactly qualify as a "smoking gun" to me.

But fine, what part of the Patriot Act equates to Bush trampling on the Bill of Rights and Constitution?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 17, 2004, 3:39 pm

Brotha wrote:Vetira how has Bush trampled over the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And no, the Patriot Act doesn't count.

5th Amendment - Held without being charged. See Jose Padilla or any person in Guantanamo Bay.

6th Amendment - Right to a speedy trial. See Jose Padilla or any person in Gauntanamo Bay.

10th Amendment - States Rights. See Gay Marriage.

14th Amendment - archeiron already posted this one

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 3:40 pm

Yeah it was passed, as was the Homeland Security Act. Both were passed without a large majority of Senators even having read them due to how fast they were pushed through (and late additions to the Acts). It was a knee-jerk reaction, and a nice way for the Bush administration to take advantage of the "panic" state of the population to get some of their things through. Quite a few Senators have stated afterwards that they would never have voted for it if they had time to read it before voting.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 3:48 pm

Or maybe it was a smart way to take advantage of the fear of the American citizens to put the power back in the hands of the police, where it belongs. Not in the hands of the lawyers, judges, and criminals.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 17, 2004, 3:52 pm

Kelshara wrote:Yeah it was passed, as was the Homeland Security Act. Both were passed without a large majority of Senators even having read them due to how fast they were pushed through (and late additions to the Acts). It was a knee-jerk reaction, and a nice way for the Bush administration to take advantage of the "panic" state of the population to get some of their things through. Quite a few Senators have stated afterwards that they would never have voted for it if they had time to read it before voting.

Perhaps said senators shouldn't vote for things they haven't read then.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 17, 2004, 3:55 pm

Not that I am for the Patriot Act. I think some of the criticism of it has been a bit overblown, but there are still a lot of valid arguments against it. Just saying that Bush and every senator and house member that voted for it deserve their fair share of blame.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 3:58 pm

Chmee wrote:Not that I am for the Patriot Act. I think some of the criticism of it has been a bit overblown, but there are still a lot of valid arguments against it. Just saying that Bush and every senator and house member that voted for it deserve their fair share of blame.

But, that's a level-headed and realistic way to look at it. We wouldn't want the media to report things that wau or more poeple might share this same realistic way of looking at the whole thing.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 3:58 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Brotha wrote:Vetira how has Bush trampled over the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And no, the Patriot Act doesn't count.
5th Amendment - Held without being charged. See Jose Padilla or any person in Guantanamo Bay.

6th Amendment - Right to a speedy trial. See Jose Padilla or any person in Gauntanamo Bay.

10th Amendment - States Rights. See Gay Marriage.

14th Amendment - archeiron already posted this one

Yes, the case of Jose Padilla is pretty murky and I have doubts about whether he should be held or not, but if someone plans on blowing up a dirty bomb (ie committing a terrorist act), and is linked to Al Qaeda, I don't think it's too far out there to classify them as enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants from Afghanistan in Gitmo have constitutional rights? That's news to me.

Bush proposing a gay marriage amendment violates the states rights clause? So wasn't Lincoln freeing the slaves a violation of the states rights clause? Is the national government setting any laws that supercede state laws a violation of the constitution?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 4:04 pm

Brotha wrote:So wasn't Lincoln freeing the slaves a violation of the states rights clause? Is the national government setting any laws that supercede state laws a violation of the constitution?

Wasn't Lincoln a Republican? hmmmmm

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 4:10 pm

That was before we all turned into racists. Keep up with the times Mid!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 4:11 pm

Brotha wrote:That was before we all turned into racists. Keep up with the times Mid!

Oh yeah, I forgot, my bad.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 4:15 pm

Enemy combatants from Afghanistan in Gitmo have constitutional rights? That's news to me.

Actually that has been covered about a gazillion times already: Their rights (which they do have as PoWs) were removed by denying them the definition of PoWs. Hence why most of the world is complaining about it.

Of course, American soldiers are still considered PoWs from the same events...

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 4:34 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Enemy combatants from Afghanistan in Gitmo have constitutional rights? That's news to me.
Actually that has been covered about a gazillion times already: Their rights (which they do have as PoWs) were removed by denying them the definition of PoWs. Hence why most of the world is complaining about it.

Of course, American soldiers are still considered PoWs from the same events...

....like I said, "enemy combatants" don't have any constitutional rights.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 17, 2004, 4:41 pm

for starters i think anybody who doesnt understand the issues this thread is about should check this link out:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Brotha wrote: But fine, what part of the Patriot Act equates to Bush trampling on the Bill of Rights and Constitution?

UNITED STATES CONST., AMEND. IV wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 213: The patriot Act grants the FBI and similar agencies powers to conduct searches without notice to the person being searched, as well as without 'probable cause'. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

USA Patriot Act Section 213 wrote:“With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result…”

this time period is of course undefined. that is of course unacceptable.

There is a lot of minutia about the types of wiretaps that can and cannot be applied. And there is debate on both sides about what constitutes improper searches regarding these wiretaps. i have no interest in discussing it, but if others do, knock yourself out.

USA Patriot Act Sec 501 wrote:“No person shall disclose to any other person...that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or
obtained tangible things under this section.”

so if my place of business is wrongly (in my opinion) searched, i cannot tell the media this. I cannot contact law enforcement about this, without breaking the law. I understand the intent, but again, too broad of power to be given to the police. So also business and persons lose their 1st amendment right to disclose that they have been searched by the FBI. Also the court issuing the order is gagged from saying why the order for the search was given. 4th amendment again.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. – UNITED STATES CONST., AMEND. VI

Patriot Act allows for attorney-client meetings to be monitored. The Attorney General is given the power to determine whether or not these communications may be monitored. The idea is to prevent a client from passing info to a lawyer, then to a 3rd party which would continue terroristic activities.

1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect
to offenses by the individual; and
(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or
maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any
such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf,
in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii)
any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international
tribunal.124

Also the Patriot Act allows the suspension of a person's right o trial by jury if they are accused of aiding and abetting a terrorist act, and allow for trial by military tribunal.

well OK, what is a "terrorist act"?

Section 802 of the Patriot Act: wrote:(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the
United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended –
(I) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(II) to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnaping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

So in other words, just about any crime could be prosecuted as a terrorist act.

I am sure there are inefficiencies in our law enforcement that consistently need to be examined and improved upon for the betterment of society. However, the solution to these problems is not the erosion of the enduring freedom that is the core of our country.

i am sure you would agree that laws are not to be interpretted arbitrarily, and that the Constitution applies to all citizens and resident aliens (The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 5th and 6th amendments apply to all persons within US Jurisdiction, not simply citizens) at all times. I am sure you also agree that any portions of the Constitution which no longer are relevant to our current society should be dealt with by the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution for just such a purpose: amendments.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 17, 2004, 4:42 pm

Adex wrote:What is world respect good for?

You gotta be fucking kidding me. The very fact that you have to ask that question shows how incredibly fucking decrepit your morality is. "What is respect good for?" hahahahhaahhaha.

midnyte wrote:it was a smart way to take advantage of the fear of the American citizens

wow dude. just wow. you woulda been a great nazi. check that, you are a great nazi.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 17, 2004, 4:56 pm

Xyun wrote:
midnyte wrote:it was a smart way to take advantage of the fear of the American citizens
wow dude. just wow. you woulda been a great nazi. check that, you are a great nazi.

If you feel drawing a straight line from what I said to Nazism, then there is really little I can say to you that you will be able to comprehend.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 17, 2004, 5:15 pm

Voronwe wrote:this time period is of course undefined. that is of course unacceptable.

So you disagree with this? You think terrorists should be notified if they're being wiretapped? This is a common sense addition, and if the delay of being told has compromised a person's ability to defend himself he can get a judge to throw out the charges, etc. Furthermore, this is nothing new- it has been used in the past in other cases.

The outrage that has met this initiative is maddening, and a sad testament to how ineffective law enforcement has been in selling Patriot to the public. To begin with, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not require notice at all. Notice is, instead, one of a host of sub-constitutional procedures attendant to searches (e.g., that warrants be executed between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M., that agents knock and announce their presence before entering, etc.). These have long been subject to avoidance if compliance would be foolhardy (e.g., if people inside the premises to be searched are armed, it would endanger agents to search when they are likely be awake, or alert them that a search is about to happen). Thus, it is unsurprising that long before Patriot, another procedural rule, delayed notice, was approved by judicial decisions in just about every jurisdiction. Patriot here does not come close to undermining Fourth Amendment protections — the agents still need to go to a judge with probable cause to get permission to search. The act merely standardizes the hash of varying delayed notice standards that already existed. It's not at all novel — indeed, delayed notice is a routine feature in analogous contexts, such as wiretaps (which also require notice to interceptees).

Voronwe wrote:so if my place of business is wrongly (in my opinion) searched, i cannot tell the media this. I cannot contact law enforcement about this, without breaking the law. I understand the intent, but again, too broad of power to be given to the police. So also business and persons lose their 1st amendment right to disclose that they have been searched by the FBI. Also the court issuing the order is gagged from saying why the order for the search was given. 4th amendment again.

Again, this is a common sense addition. I look at this and I agree that it may be too broad, but how would you change it? Do you really think restricting suspected terrorists to spout off about how the FBI is investigating them is somekind of egregious violation of their first amendment rights? It makes perfect sense and is needed in this case. How would you change the wording of it?

Some things in the Patriot Act could use fine tuning, but I just don't see this complete destruction of the Consitution and Bill of Rights that others do. Diane Feinstein asked the ACLU to give a SINGLE example of the Patriot Act being abused and they couldn't do it. It's something that is necessary and I'll leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide what is and isn't constitutional about it.

Edit: Adex you got it wrong. People around the world respect us more now (as demonstrated by Iran, Libya, etc) but people don't like us as much now. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2004, 5:38 pm

Edit: Adex you got it wrong. People around the world respect us more now (as demonstrated by Iran, Libya, etc) but people don't like us as much now. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Uh how do you figure that one?