To: Modernman
You claim it is so broad (and agree with the Clinton appointee). Nobody would actually prosecute you for giving directions to some terrorist you didn't know was a terrorist on a mission!
Give me a damn break.
66 posted on
01/26/2004 12:56:50 PM PST by
rwfromkansas
("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
To: rwfromkansas
Nobody would actually prosecute you for giving directions to some terrorist you didn't know was a terrorist on a mission! The way the provision is written now, they COULD prosecute you for giving directions to a terrorist. If the government has no intention of using the Patriot Act in this way, then it should have no problem with tightening the language.
72 posted on
01/26/2004 12:59:59 PM PST by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: rwfromkansas
Nobody would actually prosecute you for giving directions to some terrorist you didn't know was a terrorist on a mission! Right! Tell me again. I supported the forfeiture provisions of the War on Drugs, as they said it will only be used against the big dealers. Then they took a widows home, because unbeknownst to her, her teenage son was selling MJ while she was at work. Tell me again. Right!!
If you won't stand for the constitution, you will eventually get run over by the bureaucrats wanting to solidify their power and prestige. Then who will you cry to?
96 posted on
01/26/2004 2:21:46 PM PST by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson