Posted on 05/02/2005 7:26:43 PM PDT by MagnusMaximus1
while that provision may have objectionable issues, the problem with that whole "anti Patriot" crowd is that they have no problems placing these powers in the most unaccountable branch of government - the judiciary. I don't trust the judiciary to protect me from terror threats. I'll give the executive and legislative branches the powers to do it, because at least I can vote them out of office if I feel it has misused them. if some judge refuses to issue a warrant against an AQ suspect, and that suspect blows up a shopping mall, what happens to that judge? nothing, they are unaccountable for their actions.
"What do YOU oppose about the act?"
For one, it's not limited to terrorism, as it had been sold.
Although the argument can be made that the wrong person in power will always find a way to do what they want regardless of what the law says.
I've heard of that too, but it is not actually true. Under the Patriot Act, a search of persons or premises still requires a warrant issued by a judge.
What you may be referring to is the "National Security Letter" that agencies like the FBI can issue which requests information from third parties, like credit card companies. It has nothing to do with searches of premises.
As far as third parties go, perhaps there is a privacy argument that should be made. But then again, this is information that I've already allowed some third party to keep about me. It is my definition already *not* private. But there is some discussion that might be worthwhile about this.
The horse's mouth.
How could something be absolutely limited to terrorism?
As I understand it, the Patriot Act is best described as an expansion of the RICO laws to include terror organizations, in addition to the organized crime outfits that RICO was limited to.
Seems like a reasonable direction to me.
That link was an opinion piece about corrupt Las Vegas politicians.
As I understand it the trickster's slipped in a comment about "money laundering" and almost anything involving transfer of money could be merely accused of being "laundering" - and guess who gets to decide?
They lied.
Not according to my friend who works as a detective. It was available only under RICO, not in an anti-terrorist investigation.
You make an interesting, even if unexpected, point:
A government willing to abuse its power doesn't worry about staying within the law. People that are paranoid about supposed abuses of the "Patriot Act" have a great deal more to fear than they know.
Hey, buddy, you must be mistaking me for one of those Bush Administration lackeys or "homeland security" types lurking here.
FYI, I happen to be a conservative Republican opposed to totalitarians from both the Right and the Left, so can your sanctimonius whining "oso blanco."
" They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
I'm still interested to hear what it is about the Patriot Act, specifically, that you find to be at odds with the constitution.
One thing. Anything?
Hmmm... intesting.
I will be at tomorrow's hearing. And I will save my eloquent arguments for then and there.
In the meantime, I'm off to bed now, for my beauty sleep. :-)
Goodbye, for now...
Sleep well then.
I find it illustrative that you have posted many posts to this thread, and have yet to actually say one clear thing about what it is you find wrong with the Patriot Act.
Just one.
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.