Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives And Liberals Unite In Opposition To Patriot II
SierraTimes ^ | 2003 | Michael Gaddy

Posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch

It would be a sure bet that the Ashcroft led U.S. Department of Justice would like to see both ends of the political spectrum come together in support of their "anti-terrorism" programs, but it would appear just the opposite is happening. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Council, are expressing concerns about the effect that the USA Patriot Act and a possible follow-up law, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, could have on civil liberties.

ABC news reports more than 60 towns, cities and counties around the country have passed resolutions criticizing the act, some going so far as to instruct municipal employees — including police — not to assist federal agents in investigations that they believe violate the Constitution.

Joining groups like the ACLU, right-leaning groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Eagle Forum and Gun Owners of America say they are concerned that American citizens could also be victimized by what they say are unconstitutional law enforcement powers allowed by the "Patriot" and this potential enhancement act.

The heart of the issue, according to conservatives, liberals and constitutional scholars, is the effect that USA Patriot has already had on issues of probable cause and due process, and that both of those concepts would be further eroded if the so-called Patriot II were adopted as it appears in the draft form. ABC also reported that according to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrorist.

It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents.

There is also no "sunset provision," which constitutional scholars say removes the element of congressional oversight and means lawmakers would have no way of compelling the Justice Department to prove that the powers provided in the act have not been abused.

"There's no question the government has to have the tools to protect us from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us," ACU Executive Director Stephen Thayer said, "But having said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens' rights," he added.

Christopher Pyle, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who served on the Church Committee, a Senate select committee that studied government intelligence gathering, put it a bit more forcefully.

"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore," said Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, referring to the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause for a search or arrest. "I think it's been buried by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down. We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it's gone."

Among the concerns Thayer said he has about the draft version of Patriot II are the broad expansion of surveillance and information-gathering powers, the granting of immunity to businesses and their personnel who provide information to anti-terrorism investigators even if the information is fraudulent, and the power to strip native-born Americans of their citizenship. Michael Hammond, a consultant with Gun Owners of America, which has more than 200,000 members, echoed those concerns, and said that the vague definition given to the term "terrorist" is extremely troubling.

"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement," Hammond said. "We're looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future administration."

It would certainly appear those of us who support the U.S. Constitution are in for a real storm. Those of you who are Bush supporters and believe these unconstitutional actions by the government are justified to fight terrorism, just imagine -if you will - these same powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton.

Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; culture; freedom; government; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-146 next last
To: B4Ranch
Yes, I agree with computer snooping and such. It is the arrest and holding of citzens without notification of relatives that irks me. I would think a maximum of 48 hours before notification should be allowed then a explanation of what the charges are and the allowance of an attorney and family member.

We can argue about the time period, but otherwise I agree. And again, in most cases it probably wouldn't be reasonable to have any delay at all.

61 posted on 03/14/2003 11:58:06 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Sec. 201: Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information. 13.Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of law, 14.no officer, employee, or agency of the United States shall disclose, without the prior 15.determination of the Attorney General or the Director of Central Intelligence that such 16.disclosure will not adversely impact the national security interests of the United States, the 17.names or other identifying information relating to any alien who is detained within the United 18.States, or any individual who is detained outside the United States, in the course of any 19.investigation of international terrorism until such time as such individual is served with a 20.criminal indictment or information.

I see a danger to US citizens in the above section, since a US citizen can get turned into a non-citizen, or alien, based on their membership in a terrorist organization. And of course the government would decide who belongs in terrorist organizations and what groups get designated terrorist.

As long as they say (to themselves) Citizen X belongs to a terrorist organization, they don't have to release any information about his detention prior to trial. He can just disappear.

62 posted on 03/15/2003 12:00:16 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
You and I are on the same road and both of us are in the same lane, moving at identical speeds.
63 posted on 03/15/2003 5:25:59 AM PST by B4Ranch (Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: kesg
No?

So what powers do the government have over it's citizens that it did not prior to the passage of the "Patriot Act?"

Among the worst seven provisions of the bill are the following.

1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213). This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.

2. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. As reported before, this system records all e-mail correspondence and the addresses of Web pages visited by a specific target. Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216). Even more troubling, Fox News has reported that the FBI plans to go beyond the authorization of the new bill and change the very architecture of the Internet. The FBI wants to route all net traffic through central servers for monitoring. While this will require the voluntary compliance of the major ISPs, most experts agree that they will quickly cave into these demands for fear of appearing uncooperative or unpatriotic.

3. An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen(seems #2 would expand this provision to include American citizens.) can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. He doesn't have to be charged and he may be denied access to an attorney (Section 412). In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that "no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." While the provision of this bill only applies to foreigners, it sets a dangerous precedent and could easily be used in the future against U.S. citizens accused of domestic terrorism.

4. Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners. This will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" (Section 414. My fear is that eventually all Americans will be forced to submit to this technology. This bill will put the infrastructure in place. In will then be a simple step to require all citizens to participate in this system. Failure to do so may result in the inability to travel or even to buy and sell merchandise or property.

5. Without a court order, the FBI can require telephone companies and Internet service providers to turn over customer records. All they have to do is claim that the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." Worse, the company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation (Section 505). The bill of rights was written to protect citizens from exactly this kind of abuse. This provision of the new law completely throws out the presumption of innocence doctrine that is central to our system of justice. Now anyone can be treated as a criminal if they are merely accused of a crime.

6. Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505). Again, there is no presumption of innocence and the suspect is denied his due process rights. This gives government agents the authority to spy on anyone's financial activities. All they have to do is make the accusation of terrorism and the door swings wide open.

7. The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes — such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer — are also covered (Section 808). While these are no doubt crimes and should be prosecuted, by classifying them as "terrorist activities," suspects are subject to having their rights radically curtailed, as I have outlined above. If convicted, they are subjected to extremely stiff penalties. Prison terms range between five and 20 years (Section 814).

This country was great at one time because it's people stood up for principal. Our principals were written into the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Principles do count. If we destroy the principles by which we live through cowardice, expediency, fear, or any other reason, we will destroy the basis of our existence. But long before that happens, what we know as freedom...will no longer exist.

64 posted on 03/15/2003 6:37:44 AM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kesg
The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:

minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.

grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.

The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans — something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s when the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, and the spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

I understand the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but this is more of the same old same old. Government has the tendency to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one.

This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

I don't like the sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen.

The rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers. Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This action by the Bush Administration is indefensible.


65 posted on 03/15/2003 6:39:02 AM PST by KDD (If you're happy and you know it clank your chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
fait acompli
66 posted on 03/15/2003 7:10:11 AM PST by KDD (If you're happy and you know it clank your chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
So far ..................

(B4Ranch, inquest, eshu, GhostofWCooper, AAABEST, roughrider, KDD....)

B4Ranch , and the rest of the above ,
KNOW what they're talking about !
Better Listen !!

Dolphy and Sonny M ......don't have a Clue.........

kesg , does'nt Want to hear the Truth
TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday , is starting to see it.....

and of Course , sinkspur , and ATOMIC_PUNK ,
......are just WRONG , as usual !

......THUNDER........

67 posted on 03/15/2003 7:29:00 AM PST by THUNDER ROAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: KDD
"I hope your committee will not permit doubt as to Constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
68 posted on 03/15/2003 7:34:50 AM PST by B4Ranch (Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; backhoe; Libertarianize the GOP; Carry_Okie; 2sheep; 4Freedom; Alamo-Girl; AnnaZ; ...
fyi
69 posted on 03/15/2003 9:21:28 AM PST by madfly (AZFIRE.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
On the contrary, seeing a smart ass get his comeuppance because he resents having to go through what the rest of us schlubs have to go through is extremely satisfying to us schlubs.

So seeing someone harassed for their willingness to stand up to the beginnings of tyranny is not only acceptable but enjoyable to you? Are you a Tory? Thank God the Founders, who stood up to the beginnings of tyranny and against the wishes of many citizens of the British Empire living on this side of the ocean, didn't stop standing up when they ran into cases like you.

Not fighting a war on terrorism is dangerous for human life.

So exactly what would you give up to be safe then? The very fact that you argue there is an amount of freedom to be given up presents the possibility that you would give it all up just to be safe. Apparently safety is more important to you than freedom. So tell us, what would you give up? The first five Amendments? The first ten?

70 posted on 03/15/2003 9:52:33 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KDD; kesg
" Don't try to scare me..."
"...It is the style of "argument" that the lefties almost always use, a style which (1) doesn't work as a method of persuasion (except for the weak-minded people who follow them) and (2) invariably rubs me the wrong way. "

Here is a good examle of the damage done by this technique:
"1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner."
Everyone (even people who only watch television!) is aware that secret searches have been used by our police and knows this is no power granted by the Patriot Act. So this 'bold' statement only sets up doubt in any person's mind as to the competency of it's author.

" In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213)."
Amazing! This reads as if the court would not be notified of the search!
Yet the court must approve the search (by the usual standards, with additional standards for the secrecy) in the first place before there can be a search.
Any reasonable person is now not only angry at the attempt to manipulate his thinking, but certain of the writers's willingness to be dishonest to do so.

As easily happens, advocacy has crossed the line to dishonesty.

"Now This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
None of this statement has been supported by the information given.

" All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism."
"Terrorism" has nothing to do with this law- the law applies to any searches.


Reasonable people would be interested in an honest debate about the neccessity and the dangers of secret searches. It is something we should all be concerned about.
Dicussing this slanted statement has only wasted my time- I've gained no new understanding, but, most frustratingly, I daresay the poster of it has only anger at me and will just cling more tightly to it in response- so he's gained nothing either!


The Patriot Act:
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

71 posted on 03/15/2003 10:10:14 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
I see a danger to US citizens in the above section, since a US citizen can get turned into a non-citizen, or alien, based on their membership in a terrorist organization. And of course the government would decide who belongs in terrorist organizations and what groups get designated terrorist.

Well, what is the procedure for doing so? Can the government do so on a whim, or is some element of due process involved (i.e. notice, a fair hearing, appropriate checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches)?

72 posted on 03/15/2003 11:06:43 AM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Thanks for your comments. I'll respond to each numbered paragraph as follows:

1. The delay shouldn't be indefinite (at least not with respect to citizens), and my understanding is that the Patriot Act actually does impose time limits.

2. I don't have a problem with this one, as long as the FBI gets a warrant that complies with the reasonable search requirement under the Constitution. Incidentally, I never assume that anything I send over the Internet is private.

3. I don't have a major problem with this one as long as it is limited to non-citizens, there are objective criteria that govern the AG's approval of such detentions, and these determinations are subject to limited judicial oversight to make sure that these criteria are being followed. However, I would like to see a sunset provision that requires Congress periodically to review this provision and determine whether we still need it.

4. I have no problem with this one.

5. I would require a court order that, among other things, seeks to protect the legitimate privacy interests of the target without compromising the FBI's ability to conduct the investigation. Otherwise, I have no problem with it.

6. Same as 5.

7. I might limit the definition of computer hacking to its intended audience of people who do so for purposes related to terrorism.

Also a general comment, so that you can better understand where I am coming from: while many of these proposals can be tweaked and improved to ensure that the legitimate rights (including privacy rights) of American citizens are better secured, the main objection seems to be that they put us on a slippery slope to totalitarianism. I reject this objection at root and regard slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacious reasoning.

73 posted on 03/15/2003 11:26:06 AM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
"just imagine -if you will - these same powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton." We've seen this fantasy script reflected elsewhere in our culture ...


Inside the U.S. Senate ....


... Jar Jar Stoolie proposes granting emergency powers ...


... to Chancellor Bush, thereby dooming the Republic ...


... and paving the way for Darth Clinton ...


...to send in the stormtroopers ...


... and hassle the freaks.


74 posted on 03/15/2003 11:30:41 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Perhaps you will look at post #8 to see the fantasy in person. Then I would be interested in your further comments.
75 posted on 03/15/2003 11:42:42 AM PST by B4Ranch (But if France play their game, and at the last moment (a few hours before the attacks) give the US a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Can I put you down as opposed to the original Patriot Act? :)

Seriously, if I had a nickel every time I read an article like this one about the Patriot Act over the last year or more, I would be a millionaire. What I am not seeing, however, is any actual evidence that any of these potential abuses have actually materialized in the real world that we actually live in, as opposed to fears in the minds of the usual suspects on the left, such as the ACLU and the Libertarians.

Also, if I was John Ashcroft or a sponser of the Act, I suspect that I would strongly disagree with just about every one of these points. For example, in response to your first point, I might argue that previous judicial supervision was excessive and that the act would strike a more reasonable balance between the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the legitimate rights of American citizens. In response to the second point, I might respond that any such expansion is not unreasonable under all the relevant facts and circumstances -- remember, the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizers. And so on, point by point, right down to the end of your post.

The bottom line for me is that the pre-9/11 procedures were clearly inadequate to do what the government is supposed to do: secure our rights and our freedom from those who would deprive us of both (and of our lives). The Patriot Act was an attempt to address some of the inadequacies, and as far as I can tell it has done a very good job in this regard. There may (or may not) be abuses around the edges, but then the solution is to deal with the abuses as they come and not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

76 posted on 03/15/2003 11:47:33 AM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Once I finish clipping ration coupons and talk with the street warden about the need to keep all windows in the neighborhood blacked out, I'll get back to you about your Chicken Little story.


77 posted on 03/15/2003 11:54:36 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
I tend to agree with just about everything you said.

Incidentally, the provision you describe below is not part of what is actually 18 usc 3103a, but seems to be only a proposal. According to findlaw, Section 3103a in its current form is as follows: "In addition to the grounds for issuing a warrant in section 3103 of this title, a warrant may be issued to search for and seize any property that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States."

As for the proposal itself, I would like to see some firm time limit put on withholding notice of the warrant, or perhaps a higher standard of proof for withholding notice than "good cause shown" once notice has been withheld for more than some fixed number of days. I'm uncomfortable with an open-ended delay period, although I'm open to how long the length should be before the target must be notified.

78 posted on 03/15/2003 11:59:32 AM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith; kesg
kesg: The Constitution doesn't prohibit reasonable searches and seizures, and I have seen nothing in the Patriot Act or its implementation that leads me to conclude that any of its procedures are unreasonable.

mrsmith: Everyone (even people who only watch television!) is aware that secret searches have been used by our police and knows this is no power granted by the Patriot Act.

The problem I have with both of these sentiments is that if the things that the PATRIOT Act "allows" (I use the term tentatively) are already allowed by the Constitution, then why do we need a PATRIOT Act? Since Congress doesn't have the power to enlarge the powers of the federal government by statute, it makes me more than a tad suspicious to see this kind of legislation.

79 posted on 03/15/2003 12:57:18 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
So were the Founders a bunch of Chicken Littles too?
80 posted on 03/15/2003 1:00:23 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-146 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson