Skip to comments.
Civil Liberties Groups Challenge USA Patriot Act
CNS News ^
| 21 Jan 2002
| Lawrence Morahan
Posted on 01/21/2002 7:55:15 AM PST by white trash redneck
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: Black Jade
...."Among the other flaws of the bill, as detailed by the ACLU , are 'Sneak and Peak Searches,' which allow the government to obtain secret warrants to enter homes, offices and places of business and download computer files without first informing the subjects of the search, and 'Forum Shopping,' which allow police to obtain a search warrant from any jurisdiction in the country regardless of where the search is to take place. If a judge in Vermont wont provide a warrant to search a home in Vermont, the police can go to Texas or anywhere else to obtain the warrant."Thank you very much for that information, Black Jade. Not only is it interesting but provides a tool that some lawyers can use to challenge this grossly unconstitutional "Act" as initiated both by the Senate and the House.
Man... has this country gone nuts or what!
To: B4Ranch
Thank you... I will do just that!
To: white trash redneck
GOOD! Time to put the unpatriotic act in the trash.
To: stimulate
Isn't it more important to safeguard our society when we're at war? At the cost of freedom...no. The cure is worse than the disease. I damn well don't want John Edwards or Hillary with this power.
To: Black Jade
You are always right on track, on the mark!
45
posted on
01/28/2002 6:51:36 PM PST
by
lakey
To: Darth Sidious
#38 ... what did Bush think he was doing? ... don't know. Maybe he's a closet fascist. Ashcroft gives that impression.
46
posted on
01/28/2002 6:54:27 PM PST
by
lakey
Comment #47 Removed by Moderator
To: ratcat
we are at War now
do no Wrong, nothing to fear
it's for The Children
Comment #49 Removed by Moderator
To: Doctor Doom
2) Our "society" is threatened far worse when liberty and rights are stomped upon. But haven't you heard?? Safety is what is important these days. /sarcasm
To: illbenice
Remember in 1995, after the Republican revolution, one of the first things the new House did after being sworn in (and in the midst of the Contract with America thing) was to try to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law violating the fourth amendment--as I recall, it was on the drug war.
51
posted on
01/28/2002 8:47:03 PM PST
by
jammer
To: southern rock
It's okay. The gub'mint will protect you. And there's nowhere safer than a room with iron bars on the windows. :)
To: BenR2
Aspirin won't do it. He's probably one of those new federally employed dropouts hired to "work" at rousting us in airports.
53
posted on
01/28/2002 8:50:00 PM PST
by
jammer
To: Black Jade
Great info. Thanks.
54
posted on
01/28/2002 8:53:22 PM PST
by
jammer
To: white trash redneck
I get that an emergency or war is a flakey time. The balance between liberty and security is fluid owing to the apparant need for more security. On the one hand I want potential terrorists from bombing me and my family (or anybody else or else's) and on the other, I want to keep government forces caged. How far should those forces be let out?
This is a time when statist elements can shift potential power to the legislative and executive areas they control. Once legislation is codified, amendments can aim it in any direction.
This legislation has a carrot, rounding up Islamics, made fat and jucy by the prevailing mood. The circumstances made it passable without scrutiny and executable immediately. Just that is odious. Much as I would like to mop up Islamic terrorists, I getting the feeling I'm getting a Ugo with a carbomb for a Cadillac price.
I just hope the effect of the populance arming itself was a total surprise. But I'm afraid that any mention of that passive threat can be discredited using the spirit of that very legislation.
Too many lines intersecting at one point for may taste.
To: white trash redneck
The real deal breaker for me on the Patriot Act is that the administration continues to refuse to seal off our borders and insist that our immigration laws are ENFORCED. This coupled with the no change stance in allowing immigrants from nations that sponsor terrorism to come in here, like they did before 9/11, on their BS visas is TOO MUCH to take. Bush & Co. have got it all wrong. We should be deporting the illegals, sealing our borders and blocking entry to those coming from terrorist nations before WE GIVE UP OUR FREEDOMS. Bush disappoints me more every day.
56
posted on
01/28/2002 9:10:46 PM PST
by
WRhine
Comment #57 Removed by Moderator
To: Black Jade
"HR 3162 - USA PATRIOT ACT This is a searchable copy. You can also go to www.google.com and search on "Patriot Act". You will find numerous reviews of the law by various law firms." Excellent! Did you know that Arturo Gonzalez who sits as counsel to the White House for Bush Jr. was also affiliated with the Enron matter? Judicial Watch sent me an email site where he is mentioned as keeping close ties to Enron. That's just damning!
To: goldilucky
is there any info you have about secret warrants pertaining to the so-called "Patriot Act"? How does one find out about that?Are you looking for the particular section of the bill? If so, here you go (scroll down to Section 213, Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant).
59
posted on
01/31/2002 6:00:03 PM PST
by
Sandy
Comment #60 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson