Replies

And it was Reagan who pushed lots of rules on telecommunications providers to provide wiretap services to the FBI and others.

I think, though, that most of the complainers about the Patriot Act were in agreement with Clinton- there just was not the same level of dissent and discussion in the mainstream media. Not surprising, the mainstream guys loved Clinton and now hate Bush. If something Clinton did can be made to look like something Bush did, well good. Media talking heads are still saying 9/11 was the first terrorist attack on home ground- neglecting February 1993 and the bombing of the WTC by Ramsi Yousef and others (from Iraq) and Clinton's attempts to sweep it under the rug.*

At least the Patriot Act and the TA95 Act require warrants for most of the stuff- Carnivore and the like were/are broad nets.

I read Deep Black recently, about how NSA has for years violated law and constitutiion and mostly gotten away with it. For a while they took a peek at all Western Union telegrams. It was an NSA botch that freed the Chicago 7.

As for coming for guns, I don't see that at the Federal level. Lots of attempts at the state level, though, with moderate success.

*When Youseef was captured in 1995 his laptop contained plans to train suicide pilots in the US and send them against the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, and other high profile targets- named names and funding sources too. Gee, who couldn't connect the dots?

At least the Patriot Act and the TA95 Act require warrants for most of the stuff- Carnivore and the like were/are broad nets.

You're right, the Patriot Act does require warrants.

SNEAK AND PEEK SEARCH WARRANTS AND THE USA PATRIOT ACT

Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act ushers in a new regime in America, a regime where the police learn at the police academy how to clandestinely burglarize the residences and offices of Americans and where the potential for police abuse is limitless. From now on Americans will be forced to live in “Orwellian fear that government agents may intrude at any time.”