Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: captain_midnite who wrote (1590)	9/27/2001 10:29:49 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I see no reason you should be excluded, captain. Personal insight into the merits of a source are as relevant as any. What law school did Chem teach in? And, though I see you're an 'ex' atty, do you view any of these specific law changes to be beneficial, redundant, worrisome, or what? --Color Me Legally Curious

To: captain_midnite who wrote (1590)	9/28/2001 5:32:22 PM
From: Songwrks	Respond to of 281500

Midnite, thanks for your comments on Chemerinsky, and sharing your knowledge about roving wiretaps. I agree that there must be easy access without having to seek a warrant with every phone switch terrorists make. Would you be able to outline precisely what changes Ashcroft wants to make to pre-existing rights? One thing I'm not sure about - is it only aliens who would be subject to being held indefinitely if under suspicion? Also, a fellow board member mentioned that at the end of Ashcroft's proposals came the request that executive decree alone could be invoked to hold someone. I couldn't find that in the document I examined. Thanks very much for sharing any info or expertise.. ~Jennifer