BURNING THE CONSTITUTION: SECRET COURT OKS SPYING ON AMERICANS

CAPITOLBLUE.COM ^ | 11-19-02 | REUTERS

[KLT]

Living in NY....and seeing that big hole where the WTC once stood, I have mixed feelings on this ruling...

I agree we should be vigilant in our fight to remove the terrorists from our shores, and keep them from entering our country....but at what cost?

I rarely agree with the ACLU, they are a bunch of twits...but at this time, I'm not sure how I feel about this sweeping new law...I need input...help me out here guys...

[garyb]

I have a loan outstanding on my retirement account. The company included a note "Due to the US Patriot Act, we are not able to accept money orders or traveler's checks for payment, we can only accept personal checks or automatic transfers"

So, what's the scoop with this?

[hobbes1]

O.K. Here's the up and down as I see it. Without knowing the express wording, and legal intents of said act, it is possible that most Americans are precluded in some way, absent some finding or proof.

However, with all of this new War and Terror legislation, the nature of the war must be taken into consideration. This is not a war with a one month, two year or five year time span. This war is likely to last for a generation, if not longer. I trust John Ashcroft, and George Bush. Both have proved themselves over timeto be decent honorable men. But this legislation does not die with their terms in office.

Can we trust legislation like this in the hands of a Bill or Hillary!ous Clinton ?!?!?!?!

That's a very big downside.

[HELLRAISER II]

The problem with this is that when the Terrorists are gone, we'll still be living here and they won't revoke this law once they've gotten their hands on it. It's good for the war, but it's devastating for our rights after the fact.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

[HELLRAISER II]

It's so you leave a paper trail of who & where & when you spent your money.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Teacher317]

The unintended consequences of this act are going to be very painful.

[Bogie]

Well, that's the $64 question, isn't it? Are we going to be just another empire like the Romans? And, are we giong to turn our back on the laws that took thousands of years to develop into The Constitution?

Didn't Pat write a book about this?

[banjo joe]

You nailed it. Depends on a future admin's defintion of terrorist.

[Bogie]

#3

Very well said!

[WhiteGuy]

This is infringment is simply wrong.

We all saw the results of the clintons having 2000+ FBI files.....

Just wait until this pressure is put on US.

[el_texicano]

The text of the fourth amendment is such:

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can agree with everyone's concern about the intrusion of the government into our private lives and activities. Yet, how are we supposed to deal with those who would use our freedoms against us as a means to destroy us?? Herein is the key issue.

I am interested in hearing other minds discourse on this.

[bc2]

George Bush has been President for two years, that's not enough time to trust the man or not. John Ashcroft I have mixed feelings on, but my initial is to not trust him. Not that I don't LIKE either men, I just don't TRUST them

[Bogie]

Right! I don't remember anyone actually doing anything about the Clintons.

Maybe it is already too late!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The act has no untended consequences.

[ventana]

Can we trust legislation like this in the hands of a Bill or Hillary!ous Clinton ?!?!?!?!

NO! V's wife.

[USMMA_83]

Godd point hobbes...but, here's the beauty of our constitution. Trust does not enter the equation because of the check-and-balances provided by the founders.

My take on this new law is that if the issue of "trust" comes into play then I'm not for it. Plain and simple. A few adminstrations from now, some of us (God forbid) could be on the receiving end of this law.

[USMMA_83]

Sorry about that: Good not Godd....

[steve50]

Read the Constitution is the best input I can offer. Does it allow this law without contorting the Constitution? Does this law make any sense considering our open borders/immigration policy? Why would these powers be granted without sunset or renewal provisions? Why would we allow 50% ownership of security companies going to foreign countries that may allow for spying?