View Full Version : Senate Okay's Anti-Freedom Bill
Warlady
10-26-2001, 06:14 AM
The Senate yesterday approved broad new police powers for the Justice Department, and Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to begin using them against terrorists within an hour of President Bush signing the measure into law today.
The vote to give federal agents expanded surveillance and search powers was 98-1. The lone "no" vote was Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat.
"On September 11th, almost 6,000 people lost their lives, and they lost their civil liberties," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican. "It's our job to make sure nobody else loses their lives or their civil liberties."
Under the bill, federal authorities can detain illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism for up to seven days instead of the current 48 hours. Mr. Ashcroft wanted the power to detain such suspects indefinitely.
The measure also tightens money-laundering laws in an effort to dry up the illicit financial networks that fund terrorist operations. The Treasury Department could prohibit U.S. banks from doing business with foreign countries or banks deemed to present a major money-laundering threat.
The attorney general said he will order law enforcement to begin using the new powers today, immediately after Mr. Bush signs the measure into law.
"A new era in America's fight against terrorism is about to begin," said Mr. Ashcroft. "I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration violations."
Mr. Bush applauded the passage of the bill and repeated his pledge to sign it "so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks."
The House approved the package Wednesday by a vote of 357 to 66, after negotiators agreed on a provision that requires expanded wiretap powers to expire after four years unless Congress specifically acts to renew the legislation. The administration opposed such a "sunset" provision; the House wanted a two-year expiration date.
Investigators will be able to read e-mail, collect data on computers and track suspects via the Internet. The legislation also triples funding, to $400 million, for guarding the 4,000-mile-long border with Canada.
Mr. Ashcroft and the administration had asked for the expanded authority immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But lawmakers moved deliberately, with liberals and conservatives alike expressing concern about infringing on civil liberties.
In the end, only Mr. Feingold in the Senate felt the law went too far. He said it places the burden on "innocent associates" of terrorists to prove they were not involved in a plot or face deportation.
Click to read the rest (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011026-734714.htm)
**DONOTDELETE**
10-26-2001, 11:21 AM
Here we go again, people. Clowns at work.
The government can pass ten thousand more anti-terrorist laws. Not a single one will prevent some fanatic SOB from killing thousands of people or more.
We have to mean business with these fantical punks.
KILL EVERY M*TH**F**K*NG TERRORIST THAT IS CAUGHT!
On the spot. Arm every American. Fight back!
**DONOTDELETE**
10-26-2001, 01:28 PM
"Now "Terrorism." As I said earlier, don't worry about what terrorist "may" do to us, dread what your government "is" going to do in response." --Carl
We are the ones who elected the clowns. We are the ones who can order them to step down voluntarily, by vote, or worse.
**DONOTDELETE**
10-26-2001, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
Ashcroft has already said "Immediately". Boy just wait till we get another Janet Reno.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Therein lies the problem. Assuming that President Bush is re-elected in 2004 we may not have an issue, however, if he is not we could end up with a Clinton/Reno type organization that will cause problems unknown here in America. Another problems is that even though there is a time limit, who can say that time limit cannot and will not be extended?? I personally think this is was a very bad move by CONgress, that will be abused by both federal and local governments, given the abuses seen in the past.
We are one giant step closer to Socialism!! IMHO.
**DONOTDELETE**
10-26-2001, 03:01 PM
"And what, do you suppose, can we do about the over 10,000,000 servile dependents (bureaucracies) that thrive off the public coffers, enforcing the laws, rules and regulations that are killing our Republic?" --Carl
Like I said before. Either that or we can continue playing twiddle thumbs, or worse, Switch Thumbs. It is hard work to destroy the con jobs the communists and socialists created in this country, because of sleeping assholes who have the nerve to call themselves American patriots.
2nd_Amendment
10-26-2001, 04:14 PM
Long ago I said Bush made me nervous. That was during the election. Today I am more nervous about the man than ever. I know I will be hit with his defenders and the fact is I am not bashing him, or even our AG...yet. But things are going in a direction they should not go and government expansion is proceeding at a faster pace now than ever.
I believe we are in more trouble today than we can ever imagine. Three years. We're going to be living in a different nation within three years and none of us are going to like it much. Whose fault it will be, other than ours and our parents for allowing it to happen, isn't something we'll be worrying about then.
Venus
10-26-2001, 05:27 PM
Oh, goody. Now the jack-booted thugs can come in just about anytime they want, take what they want, read what they want, listen to what they want and continue doing it indefinitely. All they need is 'suspicion'.
The law applies to all citizens, not just legal and illegal visitors. This means you, and it means now.
There will be a mass tonight for the Fourth Amendment.
Last rites will be given.
George Walker Bush just lost my support forever.
Meanwhile, has Ashcroft done one thing about the INS?
Leave it to the legislative and executive branches to figure out a way to devastate the BoR and do nothing about the real problem. Neither Ashcroft, Bush or the congress have done one damn thing about shutting down the methods by which these terrorists are coming into this country, yet, like scorpions, they've managed to turn inward and bite themselves to death.
I am sickened by this.
**DONOTDELETE**
10-26-2001, 05:35 PM
Venus makes an excellent point, what about the INS?
In an earlier post we discovered that CONgress will not let the INS deport about 300,000 ILLEGAL aliens. Are they insane?? We have laws, and those bureaucRATS choose to ignore them.
Maybe if we had given the INS some teeth to do their job, many of our illegal alien problems would be non-existent. But no, the feel good left wants them to be treated as equals, and that is insane. We lose - again!!
Warlady
10-26-2001, 05:51 PM
Feinstein & Kyle are co-sponsoring a bill to tighten up INS laws. I wish I had a copy of it.
Rhino
10-26-2001, 06:04 PM
Did I miss a different thread? What exactly is "anti-freedom" about this bill. The link didn't give any details, and the press usually distorts these things anyway.
Warlady
10-26-2001, 06:08 PM
We are referring to the anti-terrorist bill. The new peep laws including internet peep laws.
Venus
10-26-2001, 06:11 PM
Warlady, there's no bill. Kyl and Feinstein sponsored/held hearings on the subject.
There's no legislation pending on this issue.
This is one of the reasons why the passage of this bill is even all the more disgusting.
Warlady
10-26-2001, 06:13 PM
Venus are you sure? That's contradictory to what Fox reported this morning. Not that they haven't made mistakes before.
Rhino
10-26-2001, 06:16 PM
I haven't seen any details of internet monitoring, but I don't necessarily oppose it. They monitor phones for law enforcement, and that works fairly well. Is this bill the Patriot Act thing?
Warlady
10-26-2001, 06:24 PM
That be da one.
Venus
10-26-2001, 06:28 PM
If they've introduced a bill, it would have had to have been today. I look at Thomas every day and there's nothing there about this.
Kyl and Feinstein held hearings on the subject a couple weeks ago.. It's reasonable to expect that proposed legislation could follow the hearings. Perhaps Fox misspoke and meant that Kyl and Feinstein are in the process of drafting it, or that they now have a bill they are prepared to introduce, or introduced it sometime today. I've been in and out all day and haven't had time to watch Fox or C-Span to know if something happened today on this, so that could be the case, but there's nothing pending on this subject through yesterday.
Rhino
10-26-2001, 06:33 PM
I've read that one, and as I expected, that isn't what it says, at least as far as I've read, and I covered those sections of the bill. Those sections are identical to the House version BTW. I have yet to see the media accurately portray the contents of Congressional legislation. And they wonder why so many of us aren't better informed!
Warlady
10-26-2001, 06:36 PM
They've been getting a lot of things wrong lately. They have been having to retract things and clarify mistatements and some of it is the government spokespeople's fault. It's confusing as heck.
Venus
10-26-2001, 06:45 PM
The stupid media have been talking about the anti-terrorism bill signed into law today. They keep saying that it will give the government broad new powers to track down terrorists, their funding, blah-blah-blah. What they don't say is that the legislation applies to everyone, and there's nothing to prevent government abuse except their word that they won't.
Right.
Warlady, my recollection about the Kyl-Feinstein hearing is that it mainly centered on new identification technology, not shutting down ingress of undesirable foreigners. But that may be addressed in this bill we anticipate.
Rhino
10-26-2001, 06:54 PM
It was H.R. 3162 and is now in the Senate as S11006. The sections dealing with internet are 201, 202, 210, 211, 216, 217, sorta 218, and 219. Most of it is stuff not related to the internet, and nothing appears to be a serious threat to freedom, but it's a big bill and I haven't read all of it. Most of it just appears to correct stupid stuff though, like not allowing grand jury information to be used in terrorist investigations, or not allowing a judge to issue a valid search warrant for computer files in New Jersey, because the company also has a file server in Illinois. Stuff like that.
Warlady
10-26-2001, 07:27 PM
Rhino one of the biggies according to the Cato Institute is they blew a hole in the Constitution by removing the Judicial branch from the equation. They no longer have to go to a judge for a probable cause hearing. I'm paraphrasing what the guy just said on Fox. Maybe Venus can pretty it up for me.
Rhino
10-26-2001, 10:17 PM
Musta been somewhere I didn't get to. Don't need the hearing for what, a search warrant or wiretap? If that is it, then they are incorrect from what I read. The change in search warrants was to remove the previous requirement that the government establish that the suspect was in contact with an agent of a hostile government. If they could not establish that, no search warrant. obviously, since these guys are not state sponsored for the most part, that requirement was ludicrous. This bill removed it. The change in wiretaps was even less dramatic, and all requirements look to be a "court". I'll try to post the bill tonight if I ever get home.
**DONOTDELETE**
10-27-2001, 12:11 AM
IMHO, the worst part of this 911 is the Anti Freedom Bill. The tower dealie wouldnt even make a good earthquake in Mexico. But the effects of US citizens losing their liberty is a very bad thing.
Seig Heil, Mein Herr Der Fuhrer !!!
Warlady
10-27-2001, 12:16 AM
Mule is right. This bill is total bullcrap. Janet Reno is drooling.
**DONOTDELETE**
10-27-2001, 12:18 AM
Any bets on how long it takes to abuse this new law on innocent Americans??
Remember RICO legislation??
Warlady
10-27-2001, 12:33 AM
Ashcroft has already said "Immediately". Boy just wait till we get another Janet Reno.
Chris
10-27-2001, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Under the bill, federal authorities can detain illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism for up to seven days instead of the current 48 hours. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And then what? Do they leave them go, pending deportation, like they do now? What good does that do?
Illegal immigrants should be escorted out immediately! If they want asylum, escort them to a safe country where they can apply for it at a U.S. embassy, or hold them in custody until it's approved. Illegal means they broke the law. What makes the gov think they won't again, to stay here?
Illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism are even worse!
**DONOTDELETE**
10-27-2001, 01:22 AM
The man who died in prison was held for a MONTH. No charge. There are others, out of the 900, that have been held as long and some longer.
images/icons/cool.gif
Venus
10-27-2001, 06:28 AM
Here are some commentary and articles analyzing the new legislation:
<u>Cato Institute on Money Laundering Provisions</u> (http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-26-01.html)
<u>Natio nal Law Journal on Fourth Amendment Aspects</u> (http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZ8ID5IATC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0)
<u>Reason Magazine Overview and Link to Bill</u> (http://reason.com/hod/sm102601.html)
<u>Libertarian Party Statement on Anti-Freedom and Privacy Aspects</u> (http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=545)
<u>Reason Magazine on Potential Abuse, Breadth</u> (http://reason.com/sullum/100201.html) and <u>Brief Comment and Links</u> (http://reason.com/re/092501.html)
I'll add to this list as I come across articles. Others are free to add to it, too. Please just leave your name with your edit.
Venus
10-27-2001, 01:51 PM
No, ES, I don't think I am.
Any president who would rush to sign this ill-begotten, poorly-considered legislation, simultaneously doing nothing about stopping terrorists and potential terrorists from getting into this country tells me what he's about and what his priorities are. Nothing has been done about the problems with the INS or the FBI, nor the IRS or BATF, as it relates to their ability to track terrorists. Many of the changes and updating of existing procedures could have been accomplished through policy changes and without the extent of this legislation that has swept the Fourth and much of the Fifth Amendments out the door.
This is dangerous stuff he signed into law. Make no mistake; it will be abused, and grow. We've seen this happen over and over again. This will be no different.
I will not defend him again, campaign for him again, nor take any joy in any future successes he might have.
A president who messes with the BoR does not deserve the support of those of us who want the BoR upheld.
Clinton did worse, which I've screamed bloody murder over, but I also criticized him vociferously for less than this, too. I'm not going to stand aside quietly and hypocritically now while Bush does this. In fact, if Clinton had done this, I'd guess that about 3/4 of the posters on this site would be ready to take up arms over it so, no, I don't think I'm overreacting a single bit.
Any attempt to reconcile this legislation with the BoR is like trying to mix oil and water.
EveningStar
10-27-2001, 02:11 PM
Venus, I'm not defending Bush either on this. I find it greatly disturbing, but not surprising.
I prefer to be governed by laws and not by man. I don't believe in a benevolent dictatorship. Period - even if "my guys" are running it.
EveningStar
10-27-2001, 02:13 PM
So, Venus, do you think WL should change the name of the Bush Country Bar & Grill? images/icons/wink.gif
Rhino
10-27-2001, 03:59 PM
I think if the fear is abuse, then this bill makes no difference whatsoever. Anyone inclined to abuse things would not need a new law to do it. Just look at the things Clinton did without new bills. Since when have politicians ever needed a new law in order to abuse something?
Some of the provisions in this bill grandfather after four years too, unless Congress votes to renew them.
My apologoies for the delay, but the bill can be viewed here:
Page 1 (http://208.185.249.64/rhino/patact1.htm)
Page 2 (http://208.185.249.64/rhino/patact2.htm)
Rhino
10-27-2001, 04:02 PM
Venus, that Cato page changes every day, and your article was moved, so I fixed the link. Hope you don't mind.
Venus
10-27-2001, 04:08 PM
No, of course not. Thanks.
**DONOTDELETE**
10-27-2001, 04:56 PM
Hrm. the law looks bad, but im not seeing why it's all that much worse than the state of things was already. I mean, once you've accepted the existence of the FISA court period. . .maybe I'm missing something. It looks like the real problem sections will get overturned by the courts.
-------------------------------
ahah! ok, this listing made it clear to me. can anyone else verify these points?
Allows government agents to collect undefined new information about Web browsing and e-mail without meaningful judicial review;
Allow Internet Service Providers, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance of "computer trespassers" without a judicial order;
Overrides existing state and federal privacy laws, allowing FBI to compel disclosure of any kind of records, including sensitive medical, educational and library borrowing records, upon the mere claim that they are connected with an intelligence investigation;
Allows law enforcement agencies to search homes and offices without notifying the owner for days or weeks after, not only in terrorism cases, but in all cases - the so-called "sneak and peek" authority;
Allows FBI to share with the CIA information collected in the name of a grand jury, thereby giving the CIA the domestic subpoena powers it was never supposed to have;
Allows FBI to conduct wiretaps and secret searches in criminal cases using the lower standards previously used only for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence.
Venus
10-27-2001, 05:08 PM
AP, it's all in the bill. If you read it, then the commentary and legal appraisals, you'll get the picture.
I've found nothing in the commentary and analyses that I linked to that I think are inaccurate, according to my reading of the bill.
BTW, Ken Starr is on the record as stating he believes this will pass SCOTUS review, based on some decisions they've made and federal appellate court case decisions made in recent years.
Rhino
10-27-2001, 05:19 PM
Actually, I don't find any of that in the bill at all, which is why I was hoping somebody would match those claims to specific provisions. I see stuff that sounds like those things, but once you read the actual language in the bill, It does not appear to do the things that are claimed.
Venus
10-27-2001, 05:31 PM
*sigh*
Here are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which should be considered when reviewing the text of the bill:
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
DeclinetoState
10-27-2001, 05:32 PM
"The legislation also triples funding, to $400 million, for guarding the 4,000-mile-long border with Canada."
Will this now protect the U.S. from Yukon?
images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif
The_Sonarman
10-27-2001, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Will this now protect the U.S. from Yukon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It would be worth it. images/icons/cool.gif
Rhino
10-27-2001, 06:57 PM
Just a taste of why I keep asking questions (quotes from the bill in italics):
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AnotherPundit:
Allow Internet Service Providers, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance of "computer trespassers" without a judicial order;
`(21) `computer trespasser'--
`(A) means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer; and
`(B) does not include a person known by the owner or operator of the protected computer to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer.'; and
(2) in section 2511(2), by inserting at the end the following:
`(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if--
`(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer;
`(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
`(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
`(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.'.
So, the above claim appears false. The bill says illegal hackers can be monitored by law enforcement officials only in the context of a proper ongoing investigation.
Overrides existing state and federal privacy laws, allowing FBI to compel disclosure of any kind of records, including sensitive medical, educational and library borrowing records, upon the mere claim that they are connected with an intelligence investigation;
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
and...
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Since I see nothing that says privacy laws are overridden, the above claim appears false too.
Allows law enforcement agencies to search homes and offices without notifying the owner for days or weeks after, not only in terrorism cases, but in all cases - the so-called "sneak and peek" authority;
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.'.
This is one that sounds vaguely similar to the claim, but as you can see, the intimation that this is some arbitrary power is just not true. There are definite requirements that must be met. There is also no relaxation on the requirements for obtaining the warrant itself. If notification can be shown to endanger an ongoing investigation, I fail to see how this represents a critical loss of freedom.
Allows FBI to share with the CIA information collected in the name of a grand jury, thereby giving the CIA the domestic subpoena powers it was never supposed to have;
a) AUTHORITY TO SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended to read as follows:
`(C)(i) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made--
`(I) when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
`(II) when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury;
`(III) when the disclosure is made by an attorney for the government to another Federal grand jury;
`(IV) when permitted by a court at the request of an attorney for the government, upon a showing that such matters may disclose a violation of state criminal law, to an appropriate official of a state or subdivision of a state for the purpose of enforcing such law; or
`(V) when the matters involve foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in clause (iv) of this subparagraph), to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties.
`(ii) If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct.
`(iii) Any Federal official to whom information is disclosed pursuant to clause (i)(V) of this subparagraph may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information. Within a reasonable time after such disclosure, an attorney for the government shall file under seal a notice with the court stating the fact that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.
`(iv) In clause (i)(V) of this subparagraph, the term `foreign intelligence information' means--
`(I) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--
`(aa) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of-a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
`(bb) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
`(cc) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of foreign power; or
`(II) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--
`(aa) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
`(bb) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.'.
This claim sounds quite plausible, until you actually read Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and discover that the little "iv" section at the end is the only thing changed. This dictates what the information can be used for after being shared, not who it is shared with. It also grants no subpoena power to anyone. Apparently another false claim.
Allows FBI to conduct wiretaps and secret searches in criminal cases using the lower standards previously used only for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence.
This was covered in one of the quotes above, and there is another lengthy section related to FISA, but I can find nothing that relaxes rules for "US persons".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is why I asked for specifics on this stuff. I can find nothing in this bill to substantiate the claims about kissing our freedom goodbye. However, I am no legal expert and no scholar on public law. If anybody can show me where these provisions translate into the claimed loss of liberties, it sure would be helpful to the rest of us.
EveningStar
10-27-2001, 07:07 PM
Rhino, I appreciate the fact that you bothered to look out the window first and didn't just accept the word of others that the sky is falling.
Warlady
10-27-2001, 07:15 PM
Thanks Rhino. That was very helpful.
Venus
10-27-2001, 07:17 PM
Okay. Rhino, ES, it's a wonderful bill.
Embrace it.
EveningStar
10-27-2001, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Venus:
Okay. Rhino, ES, it's a wonderful bill.
Embrace it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Venus, not ready to embrace it or reject it. Still looking for the truth.
Rhino
10-27-2001, 11:38 PM
I'm really serious Venus. You quoted some good references, but they obviously don't match what I got from my reading of the bill. I don't claim to be an expert on public law, so my reading may not have covered what they see, or there may be some aspect of public law that would change my perspective enough to see what may not presently be obvious to me, and to other such laymen. So, I am quite honestly seeking input from anyone who may know public law enough to show me, and others I'm sure, how those people arrived at their conclusions based on the contents of the bill. They see something I don't, and if it truly is there, I just want to be informed about it. That's all. I even did quite a bit of HTML editing so I could post the entire bill on this site for that very purpose. You and I may not agree on everything, but I always respect your analysis. I was hoping you would read the bill, and possibly shed some more light on the subject rather than being sarcastic. I would value your input. Ditto for some of the other legally inclined folk on the site.
Venus
10-27-2001, 11:59 PM
Rhino, I apologize for my sarcastic response. Neither you nor ES deserved the remark.
I've read the bill several times and shake my head in amazement each time, and I'm too upset about it to prepare an unbiased blow-by-constitutional blow listing of the problems I see with it and, even more so, to explain how existing law should be used to achieve what needs to be achieved in investigating and ridding this country of terrorist foreigners without further damaging the BoR. I should add that there are some parts of the bill that are okay, but overall it's an irresistable temptation to carte blanche abuse without reliable oversight.
Rhino
10-28-2001, 12:33 AM
Thanks much, and I patiently await your response. I know from your past posts that it will be reasoned and thorough. For that I am most definitely willing to wait.
EveningStar
10-28-2001, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Venus:
George Walker Bush just lost my support forever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Venus, aren't you overreacting a bit? Bush is not a conservative - he's simply more conservative than Gore. You and I both know that.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.