Bush Urges More Police Powers Vs. Terror

Associated Press ^ | 09-10-03

[arete]

Yep, moving faster and faster toward a big government police state. It's the conservative thing to do.

Richard W.

[Brian S]

All they need is a "terrorist" hit, and not even a big one at that, to "seal the deal"...

[arete]

All they need is a "terrorist" hit, and not even a big one at that, to "seal the deal"...

OBL is one smart guy. He's just going to sit back and watch us give up our freedoms in exchange for "government protection".

Richard W.

[John Beresford Tipton]

It's a sorry day we need the ACLU and Democrats to save us and our Constitution from a "[Barf] Conservative" Republican administration, but any ally is welcome.

[Brian S]

That is one of his wishes...

[meenie]

The administrative subpeona worked so well on the WMD's in Iraq.

[arete]

That is one of his wishes...

Well, he has the right people in office in Washington to make his wishes come true. All he has to do is watch us destroy ourselves with our own hyped up fear.

Richard W.

[John Beresford Tipton]

""For the sake of the American people," Bush said"

He's getting so freeking desperate that it will be "for the children" next. He's seeing Ashcroft getting sheet-canned on his whistlestop tour and thinks he can rescue this JBT Relief Act.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"For the fatherland"?

[John Beresford Tipton]

No, after de-Nazifacation we call it the "Homeland"

[kkindt]

Bush did not mention complaints about the detention of hundreds of people - some for up to eight months - held on immigration violations after Sept. 11.
My Comment: - if you come into a nation illegally without permission you have no rights except what our government choose to give to you. The constitution and its rights are for citizens not illegal immigrants.

[Dan from Michigan]

I want to see the specifics. Chances are, I probably won't like what's in the small print.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It's a sorry day we need the ACLU and Democrats to save us and our Constitution from a "[Barf] Conservative" Republican administration, but any ally is welcome.

When you get down to the nitty gritty of the Patriot Act, and probably this Patriot Act II, I think you will find point-by-point most of its provisions are reasonable.

However, some are legitimately arguable. Where do you come down on the following issue? If a bug is legally planted as part of a terrorism investigation, and information is found about a drug dealer, should that be admissible for prosecuting the dealer?

The reason they want it is they may be able to squeeze terrorism information from the dealer through threat of prosecution.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"If a bug is *legally* planted as part of a terrorism investigation, and information is found about a drug dealer, should that be admissible for prosecuting the dealer?"

That question is not really about what policy I think is best, but rather is a somewhat circular Constitutional question.

To start at the back end: "should that be admissible"-- all relevant evidence is admissible at a trial unless it was gathered by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment which requires warrants shall issue "upon probable cause"....

So, if the evidence gathered under the Patriot Act was gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment it was not legally gathered, and furthermore that whole section, may be unconstitutional. Therefore if the bug was not legally planted, any evidence gathered through it cannot be introduced in a trial either against the suspected terrorist, a drug dealer, or anyone else.

[NutCrackerBoy]

That question is not really about what policy I think is best, but rather is a somewhat circular Constitutional question.

My understanding is, before the Patriot Act, the legalities were that only information relevant to terrorism gathered by such a bug could be used in prosecutions.

I admit I don't know enough to debate this point. My intent was to illustrate the flavor of some of the issues that have actually arisen on the Patriot Act. They hardly fit the popular but erroneous characterization as lost liberties.

[RLK]

Bush Urges More Police Powers Vs. Terror

--------------------

I don't suppose securing our southern borders was a part of this plan.

[NutCrackerBoy]

My understanding is, before the Patriot Act, the legalities were that only information relevant to terrorism gathered by such a bug could be used in prosecutions.

In other words, investigators are granted a warrant whose specific purpose is to catch conspiracy to commit terror. Oops, they accidentally get something incriminating on some involved person. Would using the evidence in court violate the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

[B Knotts]

Well, he has a point. If we execute everyone, there will be less crime and terrorism.

[joesnuffy]

But he doesnt want to arm pilots
or let the assault rifle ban sunset