Posted on 06/14/2005 12:14:50 PM PDT by neverdem
|
|
|
|
Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot ActBy James G. LakelyTHE WASHINGTON TIMES Published June 14, 2005 Conservative groups have found common ground with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in their opposition to the USA Patriot Act and pledge to wage a high-profile fight against it, claiming even its renewal is shrouded in secrecy.
|
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The article notes that Rubik applied for his patent in 1975, which was granted in 1977.
Indeed, it would have expired years ago.
Holy toads.
You want to give me my rights back once we knock off North Korea??!?
NUCLEAR-armed North Korea!??!?
No thanks. Give my my damned Bill of Rights back NOW.
B4 this act a cell phone couldn't be tapped without the specific phone number. Disposable cellphones rendered law enforcement helpless without those roving wiretaps.
What rights have you lost?
Exactly. Very well put. Now duck...INCOMING!!!
Look, I'd rather there be ten more 9/11's than to morph into the Soviet Union.
And I'd gladly PERSONALLY sit in the first building waiting for the attack if you could guarantee me that America would remain (or actually, become) free.
Joseph Padilla.
WHAT the HELL is the Department of Homeland Security doing going around seeing if people infringe on TOY PATENTS.
We have a UberPoliceForce now.
For our new UberPoliceState.
Well, here is what you said: "The fact is the Bill of Rights does exactly what you were talking about; it insists upon 'less effective' law enforcement capabilities, precisely to limit the abuse of same."
That's when I asked you, "So are you telling me that any measure that makes law enforcement more effective is, for that very reason, unconstitutional? Or that any such measure is inherently inconsistent with the Bill of Rights? If so, then wow."
In response to what you wrote, I think these are fair questions. Especially the second one. Insulting me won't make the questions go away. Do you really think that more effective law enforcement is inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the Bill of Rights? That's a yes or no question.
They took over in 1999. As someone pointed out the collapse of the D party cause lot's of liberals into the GOP. So the GOP is no longer a conservative party, it's a demoncrat lite party, conservative do not have a viable party to support.
"The state-worshipers are slowly taking over Free Republic."
Others would say the black helo crowd is taking over, but that is neither here nor there.
Could you point out the specific text of the Patriot Act that violates civil rights? At the recent Judiciary Hearing, not one witness of ACLU, Human Rights First, Amnesty International and 2 Zogby's could name one violation of a civil right by the Patriot Act.
I'm pretty sure I think much more of and about them than you do.
I was simply pointing out that the Bill of Rights actually does draw a line, which obviously limits the effectiveness of law enforcement, since it would be much easier to stop crime without limits on searches, or due process for the accused. And it was done quite intentionally, as the founding fathers had personally experienced the abuse of authority.
And .. what civil liberties has he been denied - because of the Patriot Act ..??
And in answer to the last question, it obviously depends on the particular measure in question, doesn't it?
No it is not a fair question. The Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights that citizends of the usa SHALL have, all of our rights under the Bill of Rights are effectively dead anyway, the war on the mafia and the war on drugs killed most the WOT is just nailing the coffin shut. It is amazing that posters on FR thinks it is fine if LE does a secret warrentless search of your home and personal effects. Freedom is lost in this country.
In fact, here is what you yourself quoted: " "After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark."
If this doesn’t do it, try this quote, this time straight from the article itself: “When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time."
Brilliant. Using that logic, we'd strip the Presidency of his/her power as Commander-in-Chief, appointing judges, signing legislation, etc. Let's just abolish the office while were at it -- all because Hillary MIGHT get elected.
15.Why is FISA dangerous?
Most important, FISA powers are broad and vague, and the secrecy of FISA proceedings makes FISA powers susceptible to abuse.
FISA power extends well beyond spies and terrorists. It can be used in connection with ordinary criminal investigations involving United States citizens who live in this country and who may be charged with offenses such as narcotics violations or breaches of an employer's confidentiality. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806, 1825.
For instance, electronic surveillance under § 1801(f)(1) only reaches wire or radio communications "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person" and a warrant would ordinarily be required. If the U.S. person is not "known," or more important, not "intentionally" targeted, it simply isn't "electronic surveillance" under § 1801(f)(1).
Note also that FISA expressly contemplates that it will produce "unintentionally acquired information." § 1806(i). But while this section requires the destruction of such information, it only applies to "the contents of any radio communication," only if a warrant would have been required, and only if both the sender and intended recipients are within the United States.
Given these limits, one may presume that "unintentionally acquired information" outside these lines is not destroyed. That would include all "unintentionally acquired"wire or electronic communications.
Remember when the wearing of seatbelts was always to be voluntary? Are they still Voluntary?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the hands of the hildabeast, imagine with the PA, behind her, the power she could weld with that. Not a chance I'm willing to take.
We will all be labeled "terrorists" in one way or another.
I'm aware of that piece of proposed legislation. Sounds like something that belongs in the old Soviet Union, not in the Untied States of America.
Whoa! Take your meds, or it's off to the internment camp with you.
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.