WALL ST. TARGETED

The New York Post ^ | 07/11/2004 | Niles Lathem

[adam_az]

"In this country, we are having our rights eroded, and our freedoms limited. We are living with a gum't that takes from us, and gives to others, that we don't know, or see, both domestic, and foreign. These 'others' even include our enemies!"


WTF are you talking about? What can you not do now that you could do on Sept 10, 2001?

[Libertina]

We can send Ron Simple-Sims to set up Tent cities for the third world...except he'd probably complain about sending "resources" overseas /s

[Rollee]

I think lots of communities will go B2. Ours is on the verge of it. We have lots of tension between us and them in our little Illinois community.

[eno_]

What can you not do now that you could do on Sept 10, 2001?

You cannot keep any business documents from investigators. There is now warrantless search of any documents that LEAs can define as "business"-related.

This is just one example. Of course, you are right, that most of the Constitution dies BEFORE 9/11.

Here is a simple question: Are we, or are we not, living under one or more state of emergency that enables the executive branch to override constitutional protections on demand.

Here is another example: You can now be siezed and searched by police at random when using public transportation. Does that sound kosher? If not, what will YOU do about it?

Look at the life of the average Chinese today. They live under dictatorship, under a nominally Communist government. Put your own question in that context: What can the average middle-class Chinese not do that you are free to do? Do the police in China kill more Chinese than our police kill Americans? Does the Chinese government snoop on communication more than ours does? Is a Chinese man passing through a Chinese airport subject to warrantless search in more invasive ways than you or I?

[wtc911]

Good luck jihadist scum, you can't get within a block of the Exchange since the roads are blocked and there are checkpoints all around it.....

_____________________________________________________

Security around the exchange is pitiful. Just go there some morning and watch the muslim-run coffee carts file by. The NYC yellow cab fleet is jam-packed with muslim drivers from all over the map. The "checkpoints" you talk about don't "check" anything except right at the doors. The Chevy Suburbans blocking the street will stop a car bomb but even just a half-dozen well armed suicide bombers could assault the doors and all it would take is one to get through. The exchange is an easy target.

[wtc911]

It's caused me to start keeping one foot in this country, and one foot in another......

___________________________________

That attitude belongs with both feet in your other country, you'd just be in the way here.

[adam_az]

"You cannot keep any business documents from investigators. There is now warrantless search of any documents that LEAs can define as "business"-related." You are referring to section 505 of the Patriot Act which has been misrepresented by the ACLU, PAW, etc. It says: "Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `Assistant Director'; (2) in paragraph (1)--(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and (B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and'; and (3) in paragraph (2)--(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and (B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'." --- In other words, it only applies to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and specifically excludes first amendment protected activities. There is another section which has been amended to actually be somewhat MORE restrictive than what we had before. --- "18 U.S.C. � 2709 pertains to "Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records". Subsection 2709(a) provides that "A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section." Subsection 2709(b), which was amended by the above quoted section of the PATRIOT Act, addresses the required certification. It now provides as follows: "The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may -- (1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and (2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." --- In other words, the language about first amendment protected activities was ADDED, and limited to international terrorism investigations and the activities of foreign spies. "This is just one example. Of course, you are right, that most of the Constitution dies BEFORE 9/11." I'm still mad about the 17th amendment, as well as Marbury v. Madison. I think those two did the most damage to our constitutional system, and they are very old... far before 9/11. "Here is a simple question: Are we, or are we not, living under one or more state of emergency that enables the executive branch to override constitutional protections on demand." Cite them. "Here is another example: You can now be siezed and searched by police at random when using public transportation. Does that sound kosher? If not, what will YOU do about it?" Are you referring to Boston's plan? I'm opposed to the concept of public transportation. I'm actually working on a campaign here in AZ to kill a ballot prop that will establish a trolley line in Phoenix. I know the case you are referring to US v. Drayton, and you misrepresented the case. You misrepresented the ruling. Basically, the guys charged could have refused the search... the question ruled on is whether the Miranda ruling applied or not. Read the ruling yourself!!! http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-631.ZS.html

[Malsua]

>>Look at the life of the average Chinese today. They live under dictatorship, under a nominally Communist government. Put your own question in that context: What can the average middle-class Chinese not do that you are free to do? Do the police in China kill more Chinese than our police kill Americans? Does the Chinese government snoop on communication more than ours does? Is a Chinese man passing through a Chinese airport subject to warrantless search in more invasive ways than you or I?<<

I'd take it a step further. I've been in mainland China numerous times. It's essentially Anarchy(not talking about Beijing, HK, ShenZhen, Shekou, etc, I'm talking about the non economic zones). As long as you keep your mouth shut about politics, they leave you alone. You can drive anywhere there is space, sidewalks, 5 abreast in 3 lanes, run bright red lights, etc. It's stunning the first time you see it. Open a small business, you use someone elses license for making invoices, on and on. I don't think citizens are allowed to own guns though.

[adam_az]

"You cannot keep any business documents from investigators. There is now warrantless search of any documents that LEAs can define as "business"-related."

You are referring to section 505 of the Patriot Act which has been misrepresented by the ACLU, PAW, etc. It says:

"Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `Assistant Director';

(2) in paragraph (1)--(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and (B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and'; and

(3) in paragraph (2)--(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and (B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'."

---

In other words, it only applies to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and specifically excludes first amendment protected activities.

There is another section which has been amended to actually be somewhat MORE restrictive than what we had before.

---

"18 U.S.C. 2709 pertains to "Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records".

Subsection 2709(a) provides that "A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section."

Subsection 2709(b), which was amended by the above quoted section of the PATRIOT Act, addresses the required certification. It now provides as follows:

"The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may --

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

---

In other words, the language about first amendment protected activities was ADDED, and limited to international terrorism investigations and the activities of foreign spies.

"This is just one example. Of course, you are right, that most of the Constitution dies BEFORE 9/11."

I'm still mad about the 17th amendment, as well as Marbury v. Madison. I think those two did the most damage to our constitutional system, and they are very old... far before 9/11.

"Here is a simple question: Are we, or are we not, living under one or more state of emergency that enables the executive branch to override constitutional protections on demand."

Cite them.

"Here is another example: You can now be siezed and searched by police at random when using public transportation. Does that sound kosher? If not, what will YOU do about it?"

Are you referring to Boston's plan or the USSC case US v Drayton?

I'm opposed to the concept of public transportation. I'm actually working on a campaign here in AZ to kill a ballot prop that will establish a trolley line in Phoenix.

I know the case you are referring to US v. Drayton, and you misrepresented the case. You misrepresented the ruling. Basically, the guys charged could have refused the search... the question ruled on is whether the Miranda ruling applied or not. Read the ruling yourself!!! http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-631.ZS.html

[adam_az]

I'll tell you this - the thing that I like the most about the exchange is how great it is that it was built next to Hamilton's grave.

[spunkets]

"However, when "reality shows" such as "American Idol" or "The Apprentice" are holding auditions on Wall Street, the huge lines of people cause the streets to be impassable and cordoned off. That interferes with my freedom, not the police presence on usual workdays."

It also makes it easier to hit a target.

[arasina]

It's caused me to start keeping one foot in this country, and one foot in another.

Perhaps you should place that second foot in the other country that you apparently think is better, safer and more free than the great United States of America.

[The Duke]

Perhaps you should place that second foot in the other country that you apparently think is better, safer and more free than the great United States of America.

Who said anything about "safer"? Gosh, one is *PLENTY* safe in a police state. You'll have to forgive me if the blood of my forefathers, who valued liberty over safety, still flows too strongly in my retro veins.

With regard to moving entirely outside the US...we're just not at that point yet. But we're certainly moving in that direction.

[arasina]

To which country will you be moving from this so-called "Police State"?

[eno_]

In other words, it only applies to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and specifically excludes first amendment protected activities.

The problem is that a cop will call a loaf of bread (or a cell phone) a gun if he isn't in danger of having to prove it in front of a judge. In the case of the "PATRIOT" Acts, no judge is involved. The law says what law enforcement wants it to say, based on their own interpretation: Is your eBay sale of rugs linked to terrorism? Sure! Is it a business? Sure! Now your home is subject to warrantless search and your computer gets siezed.

Bah! Our government should go to hell in a can of anthrax. It does not deserve to survive. It has become an enemy of the Constitution, and not a defender.

And I'm referring to the plan to do searches in Boston (which now extends up to the middle of New Hampshire, if reports of searches of bus riders up there are accurate).

[eno_]

Try any country in Eastern Europe. They have living memory of how a security state goes bad. The U.S. is just a gilded cage now. A luxurious soft cage.

[adam_az]

" The problem is that a cop will call a loaf of bread (or a cell phone) a gun if he isn't in danger of having to prove it in front of a judge. In the case of the "PATRIOT" Acts, no judge is involved. The law says what law enforcement wants it to say, based on their own interpretation: Is your eBay sale of rugs linked to terrorism? Sure! Is it a business? Sure! Now your home is subject to warrantless search and your computer gets siezed."

I've read the sections the ACLU and PAW are bitching about. Have you?

Please provide citations to back up your claim.

[wtc911]

the thing that I like the most about the exchange is how great it is that it was built next to Hamilton's grave.......

_________________________________________________

Well, a block away and around the corner but I guess that's close enough.

[wtc911]

With regard to moving entirely outside the US...we're just not at that point yet. But we're certainly moving in that direction.....

___________________________________________

Please do keep us posted, I'd hate to miss the going away party.

[eno_]

YOu yourself posted the sections, that, among others, enable the AG or anyone he designates to "certify" that someone is a suspected terrorist. That rips the already scrawny fig leaf of the giant schlong of police statism.

To hell with a system as bent as that in the U.S. The Founders would see our government as sham, monstrosity, and 80% of it entirely illegitimate. They would not mourn its passing, and nether would I.