FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 1/26/04

[FBD]

“Nice try, though. Go back to Spin School and brush up on "Debate Reframing 101" before trying again, OK?

{G} Huh? I asked you a question:
"What part of the Patriot Act are you referring to?" , and if you could cite an example of your allegation, and you accuse me of spin?

I understand there are problems with some parts of the Patriot Act that need to be corrected - in particular the "sneak and peak" provision, where law enforcement can enter a private residence of an alien, without a warrant.
But I'm not going to make absurd claims, unless I can back it up with the facts, and the relevant portion of the law that it pertains to.

Because…*that* would be spin.

Regards

[rwfromkansas]

I did think of that. It is conceivable that Hillary could use it to attack conservative groups as terrorists.

[rwfromkansas]

good point I must say...

[Modernman]

I did think of that. It is conceivable that Hillary could use it to attack conservative groups as terrorists.

I am in favor of giving the government the power to fight terrorism. But, I'm also concerned that we not give the government too much power.

[archy]

Or point out how our airport security is failing

As for instance, the few now-armed *flight deck officers* who have been informed that they can lose their *priviliges* if they disclose details of the program to members of congress.

Potential terrorists every one of 'em. They've got a loaded plane, and they know how to use it!

[Don Joe]

Don Joe says: "If you don't like it on the flipflop..."

No where did I offer any opinion either pro or con, on the substance of your post. However, I did indicate that I had no interest in discussing your foolishness. Apparently you were not smart enough to pick up on that the first time, so let me explain it again in language better suited to your limited intellect: Eff off, you spawn of inbred hillbilly beastialists.

Ah, the ad hominem. The final refuge of the lost debate.

I'll accept your defeat graciously, and suggest that next time, you try to avoid such a blatant "gone down in flames" maneuver. In chess, the gentlemanly thing to do is to lay one's king on its side. Kneejerking the chessboard is not considered polite.

[Boot Hill]

What ad hominem? I thought that fit you to a tee!

--Boot Hill

[The Coopster]

Well, after that uncomfortable silence........

I'll try to revive the thread.

:-)

I am in favor of giving the government the power to fight terrorism. But, I'm also concerned that we not give the government too much power.

I've been hearing a lot of this. And it intriuged me. So I have been reading the Constitution today. I mean REALLY reading it.

Disagreements with those who consider themselves "strict Constitutionalists" may very well follow on other threads, once I've re-digested everything as it relates to today.

My point here is that the Constitution allows - in several places - to do whatever they feel like they need to to get the job done. So a lot of this PA seems a little redundant to me.

[Don Joe]

What ad hominem? I thought that fit you to a tee!

Enjoy treading on thin ice? Evidently the moderator didn't agree with you.

[Boot Hill]

"Enjoy treading on thin ice?"

Nope, I just have a low tolerance for whiners tonight.

--Boot Hill

[FBD]

Here you go:

Patriot Act Document

[petercooper]

Nobody can is right.

[Modernman]

As for instance, the few now-armed *flight deck officers* who have been informed that they can lose their *priviliges* if they disclose details of the program to members of congress.

The unmitigated gall of the TSA is stunning. Threatening pilots for talking to Congress? Who do they think they are. This is stunning.

[Steve_Seattle]

If vagueness and confusion render a law unconstitutional, then the entire U.S. tax code, as well as the campaign finance reform act, should be tossed out as well.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Exactly, decisions based not on the Constitution but through the court. Why vote?

[StoneColdGOP]

Excellent.