Skip to comments.
H.R.3162 PATRIOT ACT{ YOUR NEW- POLICESTATE- LOOK FOR YOUR SELF}
thomas ^
| GOVERNMENT
Posted on 10/27/2001 9:33:56 AM PDT by freedomnews
H.R.3162
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: computersecurityin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 381-390 next last
To: Big Meanie
"My country, right or wrong..."
You're belief system makes you ripe for the tyrants' plucking.
Comment #262 Removed by Moderator
Comment #263 Removed by Moderator
To: BADROTOFINGER
A little extreme maybe, but we have learned a lot from the War On Drugs. Or have we??? I'm afraid we have, and that's the problem. Create a bogeyman and then point at him while stabbing the other poor guy in the back.
To: poet
They have the audacity to call it the patriot act.
265
posted on
10/27/2001 10:00:16 PM PDT
by
Aerial
To: Aerial
Perfect analogy.
266
posted on
10/27/2001 10:03:58 PM PDT
by
KDD
Comment #267 Removed by Moderator
To: muawiyah
"You never swore to "die". You swore to defend and protect. It only helps when the enemy dies."
What the hell do you think defends means anyway???? Spit at em? Look here you ungratfull XXXX...You dont think when WE swore that oath and when they shipped our ass to that godforsaken desert, slapped some ammo in our hands and said lock and load, We did not have chance of dying? You think those soldiers over there now didnt swear the same oath we did and dont think it might include dying? You think no enemy died then and now? Well let me tell you something...your wrong. Since apprently you dont know how a war works you should SHUT UP. Im stopping here cause I will not let the likes of you get me banned.
To: Tauzero
So you would hide a terrorist.
To: Tauzero
Why should the onus be on the advocates of freedom? Either the onus, or else Darwin. Pick one.
Comment #271 Removed by Moderator
To: Tauzero
But but but... isn't that BIG BROTHERISH?
Comment #273 Removed by Moderator
To: Tauzero
By the way, I think you are against the ability to authorize tapping multiple phone lines at once... aren't you? That's how some of these terrorists got away.
Nothing in this law is unconsitutional so long as it is used strictly in respect to terrorism, per its title (not lesser crimes). The SCOTUS, which is today so solicitous of individual freedom that it won't let prayers be led in public schools or protect the life of the unborn from the mother's "right to choose," is not likely to let anything further stand. What this law codifies was more like the normal practice several decades ago.
To: Tauzero
But you would defend by force the right of the terrorist to hide from such horrible things as multiple-phone taps and secret searches by warrant. The Darwinism is simply the consequences of this.
Comment #276 Removed by Moderator
To: Tauzero
"Whatever the Constitution is, it is not a suicide pact." -- SCOTUS
To: Tauzero
All someone has to do is swear there is probable cause. You're making too much of this "oath" business as if one had to swear that one saw the evildoer in the very act.
Comment #279 Removed by Moderator
Comment #280 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 381-390 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson