Well, leave out "police state" and what you have is arguably the issue that this presidential election boils down to. Should the primary weapon against world-wide Islamic fascism be police work, courts of law, and UN (in)action, or should it be the violent attacks against Islamic fascism? This probably oversimplifies the case, and lest I be accused of presenting a false dilemma, let me state that the current administration is using both tools, and a Kerry administration probably would also, to some extent. But a Kerry administration would put its emphasis on the former, while a Bush one has, and presumably will continue to, put the emphasis on the lattertedly said:
Revisiting the Patriot Act
- Thread starter merphie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- patriot revisiting
Should the primary weapon against world-wide Islamic fascism be police work, courts of law, and UN (in)action, or should it be the violent attacks against Islamic fascism?
After all that's happened, you think this is still an unresolved issue???!
After all that's happened, you think this is still an unresolved issue???!
I haven't either, it's not due to screen until Wednesday.BPSCG said:
Evil is a pejorative word. Certainly Stalin was evil but after Stalin ? Is there any evidence that the Soviet Union had any desire to overthrow the U.S. by force.BPSCG said:
Not at all, but that post 9-11 the terrorist threat has been blown out of all proportion.BPSCG said:
I have not yet had an opportunity to see the programme so I am going on second hand accounts in the press.
Re: Re: Re: Revisiting the Patriot Act
As a practical matter, there's a certain logic to that. As McCarthy points out, what sense does it make to inform someone that his phone line is being tapped? "Dear Mr. Bin Laden, we've been listening in on your phone so you might want to be careful what you say and to whom you say it."
Hence "delayed notice".
Read the link. It doesn't argue that warrants aren't needed (in fact, it makes a case that some parts of the Patriot Act should be repealed), but rather that giving notice to the suspect is not required by the Constitution.shanek said:
As a practical matter, there's a certain logic to that. As McCarthy points out, what sense does it make to inform someone that his phone line is being tapped? "Dear Mr. Bin Laden, we've been listening in on your phone so you might want to be careful what you say and to whom you say it."
Hence "delayed notice".
Matabiri
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,732
There's an interesting article about the legislative history of the PATRIOT act here.
Particularly of note is the immediate response of Congress to put in place all the much discussed acts removing intelligence barriers, which had been around for a while - and then Ashcroft additionally forcing in the civil rights things.
Worth a read.
Particularly of note is the immediate response of Congress to put in place all the much discussed acts removing intelligence barriers, which had been around for a while - and then Ashcroft additionally forcing in the civil rights things.
Worth a read.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Revisiting the Patriot Act
Okay, but as merphie already pointed out, that wasn't what he was talking about.
But the key word in the Constitution there is "unreasonable." It is reasonable to withhold notice when one is tapping phones, for obvious reasons. It is unreasonable to withhold notice when searching one's house, car, etc., for equally obvious reasons.
BPSCG said:
Okay, but as merphie already pointed out, that wasn't what he was talking about.
But the key word in the Constitution there is "unreasonable." It is reasonable to withhold notice when one is tapping phones, for obvious reasons. It is unreasonable to withhold notice when searching one's house, car, etc., for equally obvious reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revisiting the Patriot Act
If you think the criticism is unwarranted, fine - it's your article. Let me know what paper you send it to so I can publicly rip you to shreds.
Okay. You were asking for comments. I read that paragraph as being an argument that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional in that it violated the Fourth Amendment, and that part of your argument was that the Act allows for delayed notification. My point was that delayed notification is not unconstitutional.merphie said:
If you think the criticism is unwarranted, fine - it's your article. Let me know what paper you send it to so I can publicly rip you to shreds.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revisiting the Patriot Act
The argument is that some of sections are unconstitutional. (The sections are specifically mentioned.) There is a difference between delayed notification and never notifying anyone. I never mentioned delayed notification. Those are your words.
I don't mind criticism. If I did, I wouldn't have posted anything here.
BPSCG said:Okay. You were asking for comments. I read that paragraph as being an argument that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional in that it violated the Fourth Amendment, and that part of your argument was that the Act allows for delayed notification. My point was that delayed notification is not unconstitutional.
If you think the criticism is unwarranted, fine - it's your article. Let me know what paper you send it to so I can publicly rip you to shreds.
The argument is that some of sections are unconstitutional. (The sections are specifically mentioned.) There is a difference between delayed notification and never notifying anyone. I never mentioned delayed notification. Those are your words.
I don't mind criticism. If I did, I wouldn't have posted anything here.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I would think the delay in notification would be an issue, constitutionally, anyway. It would defeat the point of requiring notification if the government could serve notice of the search a hundred years later. Loopholes that allow the practical contravention of the constitution shouldn't be able to pass constitutional muster.