Hell Toupee wrote in news:jefmqe$7dr$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
incidentally,ammonium nitrate fertilizer has been changed to make it useless for bombmaking.IIRC,they added sulfur and coated the prills.
For example, phosphates in detergents.
Fascinating. It's possible those that don't like the Patriot Act lied to you also. That's what I'm trying to discover.
Once again, what parts of the Patriot Act should not, in your judgement, exist?
Perhaps you should elaborate on why a law that contradicts the very core values of our nation is a good thing. Expand on why one provision enables warrantless searchesby the so called "National Security Letter" which authorizes the FBI to search US citizens without the signature of a judge with the only limitation being the search be related to a "tangible thing" is a good thing.
Good point that illustrates your misunderstanding.
First, there is no constitutional right to decline a valid search of a document in the possession of a third party. It's the declining of the third party that national security letters (NSLs) are meant to correct. Second, the equivalent of NSLs have been part of the law since the early 1970s. Originally meant to deal with the narcotics money-laundering trade, the law specified what places could be served. These places included banks and all financial institutions, car rental agencies, storage sheds(!), and a few other, specific, places. The amendment in the Patriot Act expanded the list of places subject to a NSL to ALL commercial entities. The forerunner to NSLs has been tested many times by the courts and always found to be kosher. Nothing new here.
During the morning of 9-11, FBI agents spread out over Boston canvassing the major hotels. Their theory was that a list of guests who checked out that morning could be compared with passenger manifests of planes still in the air, thereby possibly preventing another tragedy. Every single one of these FBI requests was denied by the hotels canvassed. The hotels uniformly offered as an excuse the "privacy concerns" of their guests.
The first point is, if you give a piece of information about yourself to someone else, you have lost control over the dissemination of that information. You no longer have a right to keep it private. The second point is that a NSL can only disgorge that which would be available via a search warrant. Since time immemorial, there has never been a right of privacy on records kept in the normal course of business (with a couple of exceptions such as legal or medical work papers). The third point is that it is not YOUR rights being compromised, it is the assumed "right" of the hotel or other commercial enterprise.
You may not LIKE the law, but virtually all courts that have studied the issue have found that it comports EXACTLY with the 4th Amendment. All that said, what, in your view, is the problem?
One small nit to pick for clarification purposes: Unless the piece of information you give up is under one of the very specific legal areas such as doc, lawyer, or pastor. Even then, there are well known exceptions. If you disclose something to a lawyer and there is another person hanging around, it may not covered by priveledge. The PATRIOT Act did nothing to over turn these.
T
...that it was passed under the Bush administration, of course.
Correct.
As was the attack on WTC and Pentagon. One led to the other and I don't think it would have mattered very much who was in the Oval Office.
No misunderstanding.
Really, nothing new? You just explained that the patriot act *expanded* the coverage of NSLs.
You are just offering the same stupid argument as used for the increasing demands for producing an ID card "well you need it for that and another thing so what is the problem demanding it for this additional thing..."
Nice heybub story but I don't believe the patriot act was in force on the morning of 9/11..
But NSLs don't require the signature of a judge. And it isn't a good thing that their use is expanded.
So what is your point? I don't know if they were examined or not and you make up stuff to screw with people. If they were examined as you claim it doesn't mean they can't be examined by others.
I'd say preventing another 911 isn't a stupid argument. Sounds like you'd like a return to the days where the CIA was prevented from sharing data with the FBI because of similar concerns.
Wooosh! His whole point obviously was an example of why the patriot act was passed.
I'm sure when there is a case of merit where the govt has even come close to abusing it's power, the ACLU will be there bringing a case. I say until then, when you can show it's being abused, I'd prefer to err of the side of preventing another 911. I don't exactly like the idea that I have to get fingerprinted, fingerprints run through the FBI, background checked, etc to buy a pistol, which the constitution specifically says I can have, either. But I recognize the need for it is valid.
I think his obvious point is that they have been examined and found to be legal. Meaning courts, where judges live, apparently don't have the same evaluation of the legality that you do.
I said that? Agencies can share all of the data they want that was obtained freely or by a signed order from a judge.
No whoosh, his point was that it he thinks it is a bad idea to be able to say no to the government. I am pretty sure those folks who formed our government had included that as a cornerstone of the US government they created. Do you object to those ideas and their thinking?
So again you are claiming citizens have no right to question the actions of the government?
Fingerprints to buy a pistol? Where? Why?
It matters to those suffering with BDS.
The first and only point is that the FBI failed your country in not preventing the hijackers from getting on the planes in the first place. There was an internal failure in the FBI to act on information it already had that something was about to happen, and who was going to carry it out.
Even if the hotels had given the FBI the info they wanted, it would have made no difference - it wouldn't have stopped those 4 planes from being used as human-guided cruise missles.
The real failure was in the turf wars and lack of communication between (and even within) your various "intelligence" agencies. Eroding your civil liberties with these new laws does nothing but paper over the real deficiencies.
Nah there was a lot to go around. If Immigration had found and tossed those whose visa had expired they wouldnt' have been around. The pre-TSA security regs (supposedly from the FAA) already had box cutters as not legal, but screening had become a joke (I went from Indy to NOLA and back without once having to show any ID less than 6 months before it happened).
They were looking for others that might still be around. Classic locking barn doors after the horse is gone, but still a legitimate investigative tool at that very early point in the proceedings.
Nonsense. The laws passed in the mean time to make the agencies work together and to have one overarching Czar is what papered over the real intelligence deficincies.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.