Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shedding some light on the USA PATRIOT Act More

Shedding some light on the USA PATRIOT Act

Comments Filter:
  • Cool, I get to oppose the current administration's actions, in at least one thread.
    Let's examine the article's claims. (whew! I wrote a book! Anything negative is aimed at the article's author, not you, btw.)

    Strategy #1
    The approval comes from a judge in a "secret" (in the sense that it's rulings are not public, you are unaware of them, and cannot contest them) court, and the "third party" is legally prohibited from informing the subject that thier records have been confiscated.
    In the cases where the cry i
    • Woah, did I just agree with you on something?

      *waits for universe to shake apart*

      Nice post, very well put.
    • When the government wants to go after foreign terrorists, hey I hope they have fun. When they want to investigate US citizens, we have this thing called a "constitution". Yes, following it makes the government's job more difficult. That was the point when it was written.

      So, RW, should we take this principle (the government should not act in secret) to its extreme? Where would we stop it--should the government be mandated to seek out and inform its suspects that they are suspects? Or perhaps we should m
      • So, RW, should we take this principle (the government should not act in secret) to its extreme?
        Red herring, but I will reply:
        Uhm, first, "this principle" is specifically that the US government must follow the constitution. The courts have ruled over the last 200+ years on the extent and limits of the government's power wrt it's citizens. One instance of the things that the courts have more or less settled is WHEN and under WHAT conditions the government can act against it's own citizens in secret.

        One of
        • One of the things it cannot do, in absense of and *immediate emergency*, is to get warrants from secret courts that are not subject to review.

          That's just it, RW. By the very nature of the military strategy that is terrorism, even a small cell of operatives is effectivly an *immediate emergency*. The FBI, HSA, and state police forces are, when it comes to that meme we call terrorism, forced to be war-fighters, not keepers of the peace.

          If they find evidence of a different crime or crimes, they in most c
          • That's just it, RW. By the very nature of the military strategy that is terrorism, even a small cell of operatives is effectivly an *immediate emergency*.
            Sorry, the "guys with the guns" don't get to make that determination in our society. That is left to the courts. Unless the immediate emergency is IMMEDIATE, ie if we don't do something in the next 10 minutes, people will die.

            I believe that you are wrong. Only if the evidence was discovered outside of the scope of the search warrant can they not use it.
    • Sorry I have to agree with Red Warrior here. The USA PATRIOT act is overbroad and overreaching. I hope the current effort in Congress to repeal parts of it proves successful. I also hope that the various lawsuits against USA PATRIOT now going forward are successful as well.
      • Wow! Two people with "Dean for Prez" sigs are agreeing with me!

        I'm sooo cold....
        • Wow! Two people with "Dean for Prez" sigs are agreeing with me!

          If they have their way, we're practically guaranteed four more years of Bush...there's no way clear-thinking people would ever vote for that clown. I'm beginning to think there ought to be a "Republicans for Dean" operation going, just as there's Republicans for Sharpton [republican...arpton.com]...

          • Who pray tell, would you vote for rather than Bush?

            If you say Lieberman I should tell you that there are plenty of Democrats, independants, Greens, libertarians and others who would vote for Bush or a 3rd party before they would vote for Joe. Put it this way, given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican voters will choose the Republican.

            If Republicans really want to see the Democrats lose in 2004 they should be supporting Lieberman. If nothing else that will insure the Dem
          • I'm beginning to think there ought to be a "Republicans for Dean" operation going,

            There is a Republicans for Dean [blogspot.com] group already but it seems to be made up of Republicans who actually like Dean and want to see him elected president rather than those who are simply trying to give Bush four more years. Remember that many Republican moderates and McCain supporters have never liked Bush much. Also consider that a fair number of libertarians and conservatives are somewhat distressed with the administration's tr

Slashdot Top Deals

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?

Close