Posted on 12/05/2004 10:36:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
It is amazing that the Surpreme court lets any of this stand. Our justices need to study the Constitution more carefully.
I thought they only "disappeared" people in dictatorships and communist countries.
Creating a new category of "domestic security surveillance" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance;
Big Brother's watching you...
Repealing the current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity;
And I'm sure they'll only spy on mosques, right?
The ability to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant;
Now where did I put that 4th Amendment?
Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;
Dissent is not allowed.
Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials;
"I was only following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg, but apparently it'll work here.
Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it; and
Don't do anything that's illegal in other countries. That Nazi paraphernalia could have the Germans or the French after you, with our government's help.
Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings.
Immigrants have no rights. Kicking out lawful immigrants was one of Hitler's first steps.
'Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;'
*What exactly does that mean? What kind of disobedience would kick one out of the country?
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Miller (D-GA) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Torricelli (D-NJ) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
bump to find later.
OK, hang them too. After a speedy trial, of course.
The courts need to gut this thing if it comes to pass. Laws like this is why we need courts, AND real conservatives who will look out for our liberty against an over reaching government.
bump (for later)
Are the borders closed or are they open?...are OTM getting in or not?
Has the border patrol been hindered or helped by HS
Are our commercial and cargo pilots armed or is Minetta still obstructing?
Are Middle Eastern males between the ages of 18-45 being correctly profiled or blue haired Florida grannies?
I agree with Dennis Miller on this stuff. I believe I have a fundamental human right to stay connected to my butt.
Uh, the Nazi regime was built "one step at a time" from what was originally a pretty liberal democracy. BOTH Patriot acts are incredibly dangerous, in that there is no time limit on these expansions of power. Put a five-year sunset clause on ALL of these "additions" to our jurisprudence and I would feel a LOT better about them.
Benjamin Franklin never experienced muslim terrorism up close and personal.
I have a hard time believing anything these clowns say.
As for spying on mosques or commies, quite frankly, that's the two spots I'd want them to stick their noses in.
However, Franklin's admonition rings as true today as when he said it. I'm a little nervous about another expansion of government power (I'd rather do it only when necessary, and admittedly, stopping some religious fanatic from blowing up my fellow Americans is 100% NECESSARY.). Maybe if they went ahead and read the bill before passing it this time...
Because we've appointed four generations (or more) of elitist liberals to our courts, there are many who want to rein in their power. Instead we need to appoint better judges. So where are the statesmen among our recent appointees? That's a different question, but we continue to fall short of the standards our founding fathers set, including the list of people so-called conservatives have appointed.
The problem I have with the Patriot Act II is that it makes permanent what PA1 required at a time of war. Compounded with the fact that our leaders are unwilling to conduct the war at a pace anything like WWII, it could indeed last for generations. What would the founding fathers say? Imagine Thomas Jefferson's reaction to the PA2 raft?
And there are even darker worries. How would a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry be prevented from misusing a Patriot Act? Will those of us with vocal opposition to legislation we find unconstitutional, such as gun control, come under scrutiny when the political pendulum swings back to the left?
We should do what we can within and in obedience to the constitution first in order to defend ourselves. That would include protecting our borders and dealing with illegal immigration. That would include getting serious about finishing the war instead of letting it crawl on indefinitely. That would include defending our defense technology from states like China. That would include dismantling terrorist groups in America, and those that sympathize with them like CAIR, AIM, and ELF. That would include deporting admitted enemies of our constitution.
I think it is better to die in a terrorist attack than from cancer. And the chance for the second is uncomparably greater. I would rather spend money on medical research than on restricting freedoms in the name of "security".
I don't trust any security law named the "Patriot Act". Who named this act thusly anyway? What was the reason? Usually I know who authors of laws are - who authored this one?
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.