SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (181336)1/22/2004 9:48:35 AM
From: hmaly  Read Replies (2) of 1573850
 
Ted RE..She and her family were incarcerated for 9 months. The charges against them were vague.

You say the charges were vague, prove it. The agency who made the charge probably had a specific lead called in, and the FBI, right after 9/11 couldn't get to investigating her case right away. A lot of people are held under suspicion, a lot of times under minor charges until, the major charges can be proved, or unproved. For instance, a guy wanted for murder, might be held under gun possession charges until the police can get DNA evidence etc. for the murder. The only difference is that under the Patriot act, because of national security, the gov. doesn't have to supply a specific list of charges, because doing so could jeopardize their sources. Is 9 months too long to hold someone without specific charges? I don't know. Normally yes, but I have no idea how many leads the FBI had to investigate, before they could get to her. My bet you don't either. Link please.

He now has two kids, a wife and a good job. They arrested him under the Patriot Act and were trying to deport him.

So.... Are you trying to say it is impossible for a guy, with a wife and two kids, and a job; to commit acts against the US. I have no idea if the charges were correct or not; neither do you, I bet. Link please.

From your link.

The measure to be introduced by Council Member Jay Benanav contends that many of the security initiatives create powers that are too broad -- for example, allowing for surveillance without probable cause and authorizing the seizure of business, library, bookstore and other records without notification or a search warrant.

"What we're saying is, let's use the Constitution appropriately and not abrogate it under the guise of fighting terrorism," Benanav said.

I have no idea how this fits in with the new dem. strategy, or trying to claim GW is soft on terrorism. Nancy Pelosi, Tues, said the US should be doing more to secure our borders etc, not fighting terrorism with wars overseas. Here you are saying that we shouldn't. Those types of mixed messages will send a clear message to the voters.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext