[mysterio]

Be specific.

Ok.

Section 215 states that the government need not show probable cause, have reasonable grounds, or any suspicion, for that matter, for an authorized investigation. It vastly expands the government's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States.

Another part of 215 specifies that those people being used for investigations are prohibited from disclosing that fact to anyone else. Subjects of such investigations are never notified that their privacy is being violated.

That means the government can track what a person is reading, what Web sites they visit or affiliations the subject may have.

The government already has the power to prosecute anyone. Section 215 isn't likely to result in any increased security regardless.

The Patriot Act also gives government power to monitor religious or political institutions without probable cause. The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and encourages bureaucracies to resist public records requests.

It allows prosecution of librarians or record keepers if they reveal that the government has subpoenaed information.

It allows the government to monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients -- thus deteriorating the client-attorney privilege. It also gives permission to deny legal representation to Americans accused of crimes.

Americans can be jailed without charges, indefinitely, without a trial.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

http://members.boardhost.com/libtoday/msg/6929.html

[sinkspur]

Americans can be jailed without charges, indefinitely, without a trial.

If they're in league in with terrorists fighting against the United States, as Padilla was, yes.

Reasonable people don't have a problem with this, or with other provisions of the Patriot Act.

Paranoids, conspiracy theorists, and Democrats seem to, however.

[11th Earl of Mar]

First of all, you provided a bad link.

Anyway, all you gave us was YOUR OPINION of what Section 215 means and what YOU THINK the dangers of it are.

But you never told us what 215 actually says.

This is like letting Ted Kennedy tell us what the President's State of the Union speech was all about, but never letting the audience hear the speech itself.

[OESY]

Scrutiny of enforcement actions is so intense, including judicial and media oversight, that the probability of abuse is minimal and offset by homeland security benefits. That is not to dismiss your concern regarding the tactics of, say, the last administration or if an ambitious and ruthless former first lady should somehow win the White House, but argues instead for an alert citizenry rather than abandonment of the Patriot Act.