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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (27037)	10/4/2004 3:35:53 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Congress, Read It This Time Perhaps the creepiest provisions of the Patriot Act are those greatly strengthening the power of FBI agents to demand personal data on ordinary Americans from telephone and Internet companies, banks, libraries and bookstores. In the name of fighting terror, agents can see who you've e-mailed or phoned, when and where you used your credit card, the books you read or the movies you like to rent. And if anybody at the bank or Internet company tells you that you're under investigation, he or she will be staring at jail time. To open this information floodgate, government lawyers don't have to convince a judge they have probable cause to suspect someone. They need only issue a national security letter after concluding that the information they want is "relevant" to a terror investigation, and no judge can challenge them. But last week, a New York federal judge did. In a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of an Internet service provider, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero declared that the government's unchecked authority to issue national security letters — a type of search warrant — violated the Constitution's free speech guarantees and protections against unreasonable searches. Though these letters were authorized in the mid-1980s, the Patriot Act gave the government greater discretion in issuing them for terrorist investigations, and their use has expanded exponentially. The sweeping nature of the requests for information — the recipients of every e-mail an individual sent over the last year, for instance — combined with what Marrero called the "coercive" threat that phone company officials could do jail time if they informed a customer, opened the door to intimidation and tempted federal agents to play their hunches more than ply shoe leather in terror probes. The judge said he understood the government's need to keep terror probes under wraps but warned that "secrecy's protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as simply to save face." Justice Department lawyers are considering whether to appeal. Whether or not they do, Marrero's decision should push lawmakers to trim back the Patriot Act's indefensible provisions instead of further expanding the breathtaking power they granted to law enforcement after 9/11. Three years ago, the massive anti-terror bill sped through Congress so fast that many lawmakers later admitted they didn't read it. Yet they're poised to compound that mistake. House and Senate leaders have committed to quick passage — read: before the election — of a bill responding to the 9/11 commission's recommendations to beef up domestic security. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) may introduce last-minute amendments that would further expand the Justice Department's subpoena power, allow judges to deny bail in terror cases and dramatically expand the death penalty. We hope this time lawmakers will have their reading glasses and copies of the Constitution ready.

To: geode00 who wrote (27037)	10/4/2004 5:14:34 PM
From: twmoore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Geode,I picked this off another board. "Right now you believe Osama bin Laden and al Qaida were behind the attacks. What you don't know is why you believe that, in spite of the fact you have never been offered one shred of credible evidence to support that belief. "Did Bushies know the attacks were coming" That's a proven fact. The information had been leaked for months prior to 9/11 and the impending attack was common knowledge in the world intelligence community. The reports received by the White House are numerous and well documented. "did Bush then go kill Al Qaeda and Taliban dudes in Afghanistan as a part of their pact?" What pact? Removing the Taliban opened up new pipeline routes and put $200 billion a year in heroine back on the market. Removing Saddam Hussein doubled the price of oil and gas, eliminated a source of support for Palestine, and potentially opened an old pipeline route for Iraqi oil to Israel. If al Qaida was behind the attacks, they sure shot themselves in the foot by handing their enemies everything they ever wanted on a silver platter. Since al Qaida had nothing to gain from the attacks, and did in fact gain nothing, standard police work dictates you need to look at who did in fact gain from the attacks if you're ever going to establish a suspect with a real motive. The political and economic gains which resulted from 9/11 were huge and very limited to a small number of people. al Qaida is not on that list. Once you establish motive, you then examine the list for means and opportunity. al Qaida is not on that list either. The massive diversion engineered to enable the planes to reach their targets unopposed is enough to eliminate al Qaida as suspects."