new thread
Link to whole article.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act/index.html
(CNN) -- A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.
Yawn sounds too political to me!
...
Appears so James. I missed that. Still it's a good thing. i just heard it. And yes John it is political. And I would expect a member from the UK to be overly interested in the US political problems.
This is a volatile political topic and this board is not the proper venue for this discussion.
As for this topic, I would not classify it as "volatile" or "controversial" considering how few posts it got. Posts about religion or about specific political candidates are most often the ones that tend to be.
None of this deals with situations where religions or politics have chosen to take on male hair length. Then they are fair game because the matter is on-topic.
Bill
True, but as a participant in several of these discussions a while back they all deteriorated fairly quickly. I have no problem adding to these discussions, as I am usually in the minority on this board as a conservative Republican. I just seemed to remember the consensus back then being it better not to start down this path.
So... has anything come of this?
That and the far greater concern is that even if the patriot act were eventually rejected (it won't be), how the hell did it pass in the first place?
When you answer that question, you should start thinking back to 1933 in Germany.
That and the far greater concern is that even if the patriot act were eventually rejected (it won't be), how the hell did it pass in the first place?
Well, let's see. After 911, the House of Representatives passed this bill with 84% of the members, both Republican and Democrat, voting in favor of it. The Senate then passed it with 99% of the members voting in favor of it. Widespread support of the public. The President then signed it into law.
When you answer that question, you should start thinking back to 1933 in Germany.
No comparison whatsoever. Germany was the aggressor in WWII. The USA Patriot act was a result of the US being attacked. Difference of night and day.
The comment is a common ploy of those who have no facts to argue the point.
Actually
I seem to recall from William Shirer's book "The rise and fall of The Third Reich" (yes I read the whole thing) The Nazis dressing in Polish army uniforms staged an attack on their own border post as a pretext to invading Poland. Perhaps not identical but reminiscent of "weapons of Mass destruction" claims toward Iraq.
Still have not found any.
Kevin
Not exactly this Wednesday, was it?
Anyway, the really sad thing is that politicians will pass something they know is unconstitutional, knowing that it will take a while to get struck down. They will even do this from two different angles, either hoping it will have some effect before it is struck down, or alternatively rationalising that their vote wasn't really wrong because the law will get struck down anyway.
Who me, cynical?