Posted on 12/20/2005 6:58:23 PM PST by ncountylee
With a grand jury, there must some charge that a prosecutor is trying to indict on. A judge is still in charge and determines what is a valid request. Also, in a grand jury setting, a person under subpoena can challenge it.
This is much different as an FBI agent can just send out a letter and demand secrecy.
I believe a person can challenge a request under the PA although I'm not certain and I don't recall the procedure.
The person's records being subpoenaed will never know that the event happened so he has not chance to challenge. Under the PA, the business or person subpoenaed cannot notify the subject.
In theory the business or person subpoenaed can challenge under the PA, but the power has been found by the court to be illusory as the standard to challenge was set so high under the PA that a challenger could never win.
"in the old days, conservative meant restricting government intrusion into the public's private lives"
Pretty risky in time of war.
My mother's family gladly gave up their freedom to keep the lights on at night in Los Angeles county, during WWII.
Would you argue citizens should have said "hell no" to the government, and burned their lights anyway?
The rights of the many apparently trumped the rights of a few.
I like real world examples.
At the present time, I am asked that my phone be subject to screening, lest I be plotting (over the phone) to murder thousands of my countrymen.
OK. What are the safeguards?
How will we know when this war is over? With WWII we knew when Germans and Japanese surrendered.
It's not clear what you are asking.
BTW, there are probably a few revisions that could be made to section 505 that would make it appealing to all and still retain its anti-terrorism utility.
How do we know when the war is over? When terrorist stop exploding on a regular basis
I'm out.
Precisely, and I hate to be so blunt about it, but isn't it the people who are already doing illegal things, who are so concerned about what "rights" are going to be taken from them?
"If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".
Perhaps the "Sunset Provision" should read "when the war is over" or maybe "when there are no more international terrorists"??? I'm being facetious, but we've always found it necessary to amend personal freedoms during a war.
It DOES have a sunset clause. But that said, tell me when the jihadist threat will end, and I'll be happy to set an expiration date....
We'll be "at war" for 300 years by that standard.
...and Hitler was popularly elected!
We have a CONSTITUTION and enumerated BILL OF RIGHTS for good reasons!
Any and all attempts to sidestep, circumvent or ignore same is an act of sedition, no matter how loudly the proponents clamor that "the end justifies the means".
I have already witnessed the appalling attitude change of our American "Law Enforcement" post "patriot act", it has NOT been good for the American public.
The new attitude is, "We are THE LAW, we can do anything we want, you have no rights, we can do anything we want to anybody for any reason we feel like".
This may not be the "patriot act's" original intent, but it certainly IS a visible result. BTW, the act has ALREADY been abused to prosecute entirely domestic acts having NOTHING to do with terrorism.
You don't believe it?
Fine, but when your eyes are opened by personal experience, you will not be able to claim you did not know it was coming.
There are indeed some excellent provisions in the misnamed "patriot act", but there are also too many which are flagrantly unconstitutional.
If this is truly a "Conservative" site, we should be "Conserving" our Constitution and BOR as written, not subjugating it to "the necessity of the moment" as the liberals are so fond of doing!
As the saying goes, "Legislate in haste, repent at leisure".
This is the time to "repent" and fix the horrid flaws in the feculent haste-fully written and passed "patriot act".
I applaud the four Republicans who are standing against this "act" as written, and sorely disappointed that our republic is having to depend on Liberals to defend itself against such brazen sedition.
I favor the kick to the rear. We have pretty clear evidence carrots don't work. They only want more. Brings to mind: Give them an inch and they take a mile.
I don't think that lawyers will win this one.
From my initial research, there are no safeguards - agents are on the honor system. A person won't ever know if they've had their records subpoenaed so they won't even be able to challenge it.
This Sinunu guy always looked suspicious to me.
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.