[Hugin]

In effect, that new law is to our Constitutional and civil rights as water is to fire.

How so? Like most of the critics of this law, the author is long on hyperbole and short on facts. Citing the ACLU as a source does not exactly settle it either. What exact provisions are supposed to be "un-Constitutional"? If they are, the Supreme Court can nullify them. However most of them have already been ruled as Constitutional, but have only been applied to organized crime. Now those same provisions can be used against terrorists. At least that's the Bush administration explanation. If it's wrong it would be more persuasive to point out the actual details of the law, rather than talking in strident generalities.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"If they are, the Supreme Court can nullify them."

H, How many "Non-terrorist" U.S. of A. citizens being ruined by the provisions of the "Patriot act" will it take for even you to denounce the bill? The administration isn't using the RICO {"organized crime"} bill today to indict various criminal activities occurring around this nation against U.S. of A. citizens. What makes you think that that selective enforcement will not continue??

HERE is but an example of the use to which the bill will be used. WORDS will become "actions" to be prosecuted. This is NOT good. Peace and love, George.

[forest]

You might start by reading the US Constitution. It will help to remember that the Constitution is a limiting document. It dictates what the federal government can do, not what it can not. What is NOT in the Constitution, the federal government is NOT authorized to do. Violators must be tried for violating the Supreme Law of the Land, and under oath to boot.