Ridge voted for the AWB in Congress, and has led the administration's foot-dragging on arming pilots.
When Ridge was asked by a pilot about carrying a gun in the cockpit, he retorted "Where do you stop?" If pilots were allowed to carry weapons, railroad engineers and bus drivers would soon be asking to do the same"
So, using the more complete document, SPEEDING is not a violation of the act nor can it be considered anything but speeding unless you were planning mass destruction...like speeding into a building or a large group of people.
I reread section 802, and you're correct. However the phrase "appears to be intended to.... intimidate or influence" in paragraph B is intentionally vague, and as such, it's not too hard to think of many scenarios where it could be misused.
What specifically in the "sneak n peak" provisions concern you?
The fact that the gov't can come in and search your property without telling you. Prior to 9/11 they could do this, but only under exigent circumstances. The bar has been significantly lowered by the Patriot Act.
Furthermore, do you disagree with the idea that every electronic eavesdropping measure to be employed by the FBI, CIA, etc. should require a warrant?
Every domestic electronic eavesdropping measure should require a warrant. Exigent circumstances excluded.
If so, what are the ramifications to the effort to stop terrorism in this country?
Less than the ramifications of leaving the borders wide open to illegal immigrants.
The gov't had all the laws they needed to prevent 9/11.
What other "non-terrorism" cases have used the Patriot Act?
Drug cases, gambling cases, strip club cases. I even saw a thread here about how the Act was used in regards to Limbaugh, but I haven't read that thread yet.
3 states and 200 cities passed resolutions to do what? Furthermore, I thought you were against unnecessary government bureaucracy? Aren't these resolutions exactly that?
A resolution against a bill which eviscerates the Bill of Rights isn't "bureaucracy". It's one of the few legitimate things a gov't can do, since the primary purpose of gov't is to secure our Rights.
Furthermore, since you are an advocate of closed borders, certainly you wouldn't mind if the administration just decided to make it so and spend billions doing so, right?
It would certainly be better spent than what they are spending it on now.
While I would like to believe it would cost less to do so, I'd like to see some numbers
A few thousand troops, augmented by volunteers could do the job.
If you really wanted to go cheap, just put a bounty on the head of any male illegal immigrant over the age of 14.
Vagueness in law is actually a good thing and is very common -- not just in Section 802 of the PAT Act. Vagueness actually leaves more descretion to common law and the people of the jury in determining what is reasonable and what is not resonable than actually putting in hard firm guideless for what is an offense.
For example;
The man was accused of going 40mph in a 30 mph speed zone.
Or;
The man was accused of going 40mph in a "Do Not Drive Fast" speed zone.
Which of the two examples better leaves the verdict closer to common law and what is reasonable??
Yes, he certainly seems "anti-gun." Now what about "control freak"? Or was that just empty rhetoric?
I reread section 802, and you're correct. However the phrase "appears to be intended to.... intimidate or influence" in paragraph B is intentionally vague, and as such, it's not too hard to think of many scenarios where it could be misused.
It's not hard to see where any phrase, pulled out of context, could be misused. However, taken in its entirety and with its understood intent, it is not vague.
The fact that the gov't can come in and search your property without telling you. Prior to 9/11 they could do this, but only under exigent circumstances. The bar has been significantly lowered by the Patriot Act.
The gov't CANNOT come in and search without telling you. The must tell you, EVEN UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT. It is however, a delayed notification. This has been used many time prior to the Patriot Act and has held up in court as Constitutional.
So, how has the bar been significantly lowered by the Patriot Act?
Every domestic electronic eavesdropping measure should require a warrant. Exigent circumstances excluded.
The Patriot Act does not change this.
Less than the ramifications of leaving the borders wide open to illegal immigrants.
The gov't had all the laws they needed to prevent 9/11.
Really? So, writing a law allowing "roving wiretaps" with respect to today's technology was already available? A specific law allowing delayed notification was available? A specific law allowing information sharing between governmental agencies WAS NOT NEEDED?????
Your reply with respect to non-terror uses of the Patriot Act...Drug cases, gambling cases, strip club cases. I even saw a thread here about how the Act was used in regards to Limbaugh, but I haven't read that thread yet.
Ahem...Are you trying to be purposely misleading or are you ill informed? There has been ONE "strip club case" in Vegas and the portions of the Patriot Act which were used could have been easily done PRIOR to the Patriot Act. It would have simply taken more time.
The "gambling case" existed because the Patriot Act prohibits the online transfer of funds from criminal activity. Prior to the PA, it was illegal to transfer funds from criminal activity anyway. Now, it is just easier to track. Moreover, companies like Paypal and Citibank stop transferring funds that had to do with online gambling. Are your equally assaulting Paypal/ebay and Citibank for these limitations?
There haven't been any specific drug cases mentioned with respect to the Patriot Act but there have been a number of drug investigations where they used the nationwide warrant section of the PA. With today's technology, it is a REASONABLE extension of the current search warrant laws.
A resolution against a bill which eviscerates the Bill of Rights isn't "bureaucracy". It's one of the few legitimate things a gov't can do, since the primary purpose of gov't is to secure our Rights.
And in the case of "resolutions" against the Patriot Act, they do nothing...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The express concern about the PASSED legislation but DO NOTHING! They are NON BINDING AND MEANINGLESS! And you think that is a good use of government time and resources?? Why? Are you too lazy to do the same damn thing yourself? Were you actively talking with like minded folks as well as your representatives so they would vote against the bill?
It would certainly be better spent than what they are spending it on now.
Really? Why?
A few thousand troops, augmented by volunteers could do the job.
If you really wanted to go cheap, just put a bounty on the head of any male illegal immigrant over the age of 14.
Oh, now I see. A few thousand troops to protect how many miles of border?? The US-Mexican border is roughly 2000 miles. So, you want what? One troop per mile? Oh, that will do it!
Couple the mexican border with the Canadian border and you have OVER 5000 Miles of border to protect...with a few thousand troops, eh? And let's not forget about the water borders as well. That adds an additional 2400 miles to the Canadian border.
But sure, let's go on the cheap and, reminiscent of Jesse Ventura ("You haven't really hunted 'til ya hunted man.") hunt down all male illegal immigrants over 14 years of age. sounds good. Do they wear signs on their backs? foreheads? or are you really just focusing on those "damn Mexicans"? How do you tell an illegal from a legal immigrant? Do we get to shoot them or just turn them in?
Remember my previous post when I brought up the idea of REASONABLE alternatives? Do you really think these are reasonable?
"Intelligent discussion" isn't missing from Free Republic. It just doesn't support what you seem to stand for and therefore you must find ways to undermine it.
What you continue to do is offer criticism, deserved and undeserved, without any reasonable alternatives nor much rational thought.