The Reform Party wrong on its stance on the Patriot Act

Reform Party of the USA

[Lord Nelson]

5) Resolution on the Homeland Security Act/Patriot Acts I and II Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights enumerating our fundamental freedoms is the supreme law of the land and

Whereas, the Homeland Security Act/Patriot Act I and II violates the Constitutional rights of United States citizens by treating every major violation of law as if it were an act of terrorism even if clearly it is not, and

Whereas, in the Patriot Act any citizen tried under this act is denied attorney/client privileges, peaceful protests and demonstrations against governmental policies are also curtailed.

Whereas, the Patriot Act also employs police state tactics by increased wire tapping even when unwarranted, and secret arrests of citizens who the state suspects of being terrorists.

Therefore be it resolved; that the Reform Party affirms our Constitutional Rights, such as: the right to assemble, the right to be secure against illegal search and seizures, protection against cruel and unusual punishment (torture), and the right of any US citizen to have a fair trial before his peers.

Therefore be it further resolved, that the Reform Party believes the Homeland Security Act/Patriot Act I and II is wrong, unconstitutional and in need of repeal.

[Lord Nelson]

Oh, OK, Pat Buchanan contends surveillance can be done without a warrant. If that's true, then maybe there is a problem. As far as keeping it secret (keeping it out of the media), I have no problem. I guess the question is how hard is it to get a warrant. Will liberal judges want to protect Mosques from surveillance?

[inquest]

No, only a law enforcement agency.

But here's the problem. When they're acting in secret, and the judges issuing the warrant are acting in secret, then there's no accountability and therefore it's no different from having anyone at all put you under surveillance. Working for the government doesn't automatically make someone more moral than the person living next door.

If they're acting without a warrant, then that could be acceptable as long as they'd be willing to justify their actions to a jury should they get caught breaking the laws that everyone else has to obey.