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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (462855)	9/22/2003 11:48:47 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

Kevin, a short while ago, we in Snohomish County, Washington had some of the cheapest power rates in the country. Now, we have some of the most expensive - Thanks to the manipulation by greedy power companies.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (462855)	9/22/2003 12:09:25 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 769669

More and more pressure to STOP the big brother crap from Ashcroft and company Patriot Act, Part II September 22, 2003 The Bush administration has been on a campaign to shore up support for the Patriot Act and argue for an expanded version, which is being dubbed Patriot Act II. This public-relations offensive comes, however, at a time when a growing number of Americans are saying the original act already gives government too much power. Faced with these reasoned objections, the administration is becoming more shrill. Last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft named librarians as the latest group to pose a threat to freedom. Rather than lash out at well-intentioned critics, the administration should listen to the thoughtful voices from across the political spectrum who are saying we need less Patriot Act, not more. President Bush spoke out last week in favor of a three-point plan for expanding the law. Patriot Act II would give the government broad powers to seize documents and force testimony without a court order, expand use of the death penalty and make it harder to be released on bail. None of these tools are necessary to fight terrorism, and each threatens to infringe on the civil liberties of Americans. The most troubling part of the new plan is the call for expanding government access to private data, allowing federal agents to issue subpoenas for private medical, financial and other records, without a court order. The lack of judicial oversight removes an important check on government misconduct. Record holders would be required to comply, or face prison, and would be barred from telling anyone about the subpoena. The two other parts of the plan are equally misguided. The new death penalty provision is not needed: antiterrorism laws already provide for capital punishment. And it is worded so vaguely that it could be used against people with no ties to international terrorism, including domestic political protesters. The bail provision, which creates a presumption in terrorism cases that bail will be denied, is also unnecessary. Judges can already withhold bail when defendants pose a threat. The new law simply tries to coerce judges into holding people they do not think need to be held. The Justice Department announced on Thursday that it had not used its power under the Patriot Act to demand library records a single time. That revelation may have been intended to support Mr. Ashcroft's mean-spirited attack on librarians, whom he charged with being caught up in "baseless hysteria." But selectively releasing this one statistic has a three-card monte feel: if the number grows, it is unlikely that the Justice Department will be so forthcoming. If the administration truly had nothing to hide about its use of this power, it would not be arguing for the authority to put a librarian in prison for speaking publicly about receiving a subpoena. The administration is acting as if it does not have the legal powers it needs to fight terrorism, when it does. The drive to roll back civil liberties is a threat to freedom and a distraction. The administration would better use its energy on more effective law enforcement strategies to keep us safe. nytimes.com CC