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: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (73359)	2/12/2003 12:21:42 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

bunch of chickenhawks Welcome aboard, Pat! So, other than what you posted, how do you like the Administration? We are a little short of "Leftys" right now, so an addition from San Francisco is great. Are you ready to enjoy our "Cakewalk" into Baghdad?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (73359)	2/12/2003 12:48:16 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Patriot Act: The Sequel washingtonpost.com [on the constitution thrashing front, this tasty little tidbit seems to be surreptitiously working its way through the back channels of Congress ] But the draft contains many troubling provisions. It would further expand intelligence surveillance powers into the traditional realm of law enforcement. Like a Senate bill soon to be taken up by the Judiciary Committee, it would allow foreigners suspected of terrorism to be watched as intelligence targets -- rather than subjects of law enforcement -- even if they could not be linked to any foreign group or state. But it would go much further. It would allow intelligence surveillance in certain circumstances even when the government could not produce any evidence of a crime. It also would allow certain snooping with no court authorization, not only -- as now -- when Congress declared war but when it authorized force or when the country was attacked. The result of such changes would be to magnify the government's discretion to pick the legal regime under which it investigates and prosecutes national security cases and to give it more power unilaterally to exempt people from the protections of the justice system and place them in a kind of alternative legal world. Congress should be pushing in the opposite direction. Before the department asks Congress for more powers, it needs to disclose how it is using the ones it already has. Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests. In fact, the draft legislation would allow the department to withhold information concerning the identity of Sept. 11 detainees -- a matter now before the courts. At the very least, Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the department is doing before granting the executive branch still more authority. [ A more extensive article is available at publicintegrity.org , Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act ; a pdf of the actual proposed text of the law is linked within that article at publicintegrity.org ]