That's probably because you've made sweeping claims and generalizations without bothering to cite the actual provisions that you believe are cleaerly unconstitutional. And your examples of abuse are next to worthless inasmuch as they allude to second or third-hand accounts of alleged arrests to which the word "terror" has been vaguely applied by nameless and faceless somebodies.
Your post isn't a report. It is a rumor.
The USA PATRIOT Act may well have serious flaws. Do your homework and try again.
My God Kevin, there's hope for you! I'm temporarlily taking you off my idiot list for that one.
I can't argue with either of your points about stupidity. Real threats of violence are stupid and illegal as they should be.
That's not where the problem lies with this act, I think both of you know that.
I did not make any such claims. I merely referenced other such claims. Do you deny that such have been made?
And your examples of abuse are next to worthless inasmuch as they allude to second or third-hand accounts of alleged arrests to which the word "terror" has been vaguely applied by nameless and faceless somebodies.
"Second or third-hand accounts"??? No. These were news reports which I heard on the local radio.
"Alleged arrests"?? Again, there was nothing "alleged" about the arrests or the charges "to which the word "terror" has been vaguely applied". The charges were not vague, they were specific: terrorism.
I'll give you the "nameless and faceless somebodies" because I neither know the names of, nor have ever seen the prosecuters who applied the charges. Of course, they do have names, which a bit of research would reveal.
Your post isn't a report. It is a rumor.
It is definitely not rumor. It is a report of what I have heard locally and an attempt to determine if the situation is widespread. Obviously you have an agenda of your own which precludes such knowledge from spreading. I wonder what that might be? Or do you just have a problem with reading comprehension?