An informed discussion about politics. Hosted by a mathematician, a lawyer, and a political scientist.
This provision that has been roled back has been used and is not a theoretical issue. A library in Washington State is challenging it in court after the FBI demanded the records for everyone at that library who ever checked out a book about Osama Bin Laden.It is precisely these kinds of blanket fishing expeditions that are violations of our rights. The FBI will still be allowed to get court approval to investigate individual suspects. What the Patriot Act did was let them - without court approval - investigate all of us without our knowledge and then use the product of those secret blanket investigations as evidence. Tyrrany! // posted by Raised By Republicans
This just in, America offically ahs become the country everyone is afraid of, reminds me of the domino theoryhttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/haveyoursay/polls/?vote=yes&itemId=2667750&qid=2667753&aid=2667759&display=true // posted by Siddharthawolf
Anyone interested in learning more about these sorts of abuses should look into the Writs of Assistance issued beginning in the 1760s. They were court orders (i.e., more stringent protections than Patriot Act provisions) and allowed customs agents in search of contraband to more or less search any person's home or place of business for anything on the mere suspicion that some smuggling of some kind was going on. For example, there was no need even to specify what kind of thing was being smuggled. It was used, therefore, widely to intimidate enemies of British rule, and was one of many major factors in the revolution.According to wikipedia, which tends to be accurate at least on broad details:"The colonists had several problems with these writs as they were applied. They were permanent and even transferable: a writ holder could asign them to another. Anyplace could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. This put anyone who had such a writ above the law. When the writs were challenged in court, attorney general James Otis resigned rather than defend them. In fact, Otis became the lead attorney for the other side." // posted by Law Talking Guy
Post a Comment