Caltrops - Motherfucking News





	[quote name="Mysterio"][quote name="Lizard_King"]<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry082803.asp">where else?</a> I think it begs the question: Would you still be in favour of it if it were Janet Reno's Justice Department in charge?[/quote] Not me. pedantry: isn't it really <i>asking</i> the question? [quote]I dunno. Concrete criticisms?[/quote] Well, ignoring this part... [quote]They should bundle their proposals together and call them "The Zacarias Moussaoui Protection Act," .... Out on the Democratic hustings, it's as if Sept. 11 never happened. Of course, no organization contributed so much to the lax law enforcement that made possible the murder of 3,000 Americans that day than the ACLU[/quote] ... which instantly marks Rich Lowry and every institution he works for as a disgusting fucking trolls who mock the deaths of thousands of Americans, because god knows ONLY Democrats have voiced concerns about the Patriot Act and lord knows the ONLY organization responsible for 9/11 was that darned ACLU (and homos, single moms, and forsaking Jesus too? jesus fucking christ)... ...The article makes a big fuss of noting the "court orders" required for the various powers designated in the Patriot Act. It fails to note that for many of the provisions, these court orders are obtained from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court, a closed-door secret court made up of possibly anonymous judges with almost no oversight, which has rubberstamped every single FISA request made since its inception in 1978 UNTIL last year, when it made a surprise ruling against Ashcroft's requests, which was promptly overturned by the FISA appeals court (which has never met before, ever). (see <a href="http://www.port7alliance.com/news/courtwiretap.html">here</a>) For example (about "court orders"): [quote]Grand juries have always been able to subpoena records if they are relevant to a criminal investigation. The Patriot Act extends this power to counterterrorism investigators and requires a court order for it to be used.[/quote] Here he seems to equate secret proceedings of FISA with the proceedings of a grand jury. Slightly similar, I suppose, since grand juries meet in secret. But a grand jury is nevertheless a jury of your peers, and I would think it would be significantly more difficult to abuse power in front of seven random citizens than the DOJ-Rehnquist-FISA club who all meet in secret and talk amongst no one but themselves in secret, whose decisions are kept, well, secret, and never divulged to anyone. Theoretically you have the judicial branch (FISA) overseeing the actions of the executive (DOJ). Sheesh but the only time FISA pipes up about it they get shut down by the FISA Appeals. Was FISA right? Was FISA Appeals right? Hard to say since no one will ever get a chance to see the facts of the case. And then the Patriot Act ammended the FISA so that these sorts of secret court proceedings can be used, essentially, in criminal investigations. Previously "the purpose" had to be for foreign intelligence. Now "a significant purpose" has to be for foreign intelligence. But what used to be a tool to spy on spies without much Constitutional restraint can now be a tool to spy on spies and pursue criminal investigations without much Constitutional restraint. That's my own, IANAL take on it. [/quote]