[mrsmith]

As one can tell, in this case, he is referring to the Patriot Act.

The only way to prove a negative (that this is not in the act) is for me to present the entire matter under debate.

Here is the Act as passed: http://spot.pcc.edu/~rwolf/USA_Patriot_Act.pdf

By inspection, his assertion is not supported by the language of the law.

Now, you need only find in it the authority he asserts is in it to disprove my assertion.
It is a question that can only be decided by inspection, and I'll appreciate your showing me any support for his assertion you may find.

[Askel5]

Thanks for the link. I'll return to the Patriot thread to argue in more depth but, given your reasoning in the Rockwell article ...

(that because you can drive a truck through their three-pronged test for proving a domestic terrorist, any one definition cited -- especially from the slate of possibilities included in section (B) -- is somehow NOT a truthful representation of what the Act means by "domestic terrorist")

I fear it's going to be like arguing SB-130 (Texas's so-called "Parental Consent" bill) all over again.

We'll see. I'll see if I can't come up with something substantive for you to take apart and will do my best to find the Ashcroft quote.