I think a case could be made that Illegal search and seizure was largely legalized in the Patriot Act [uga.edu]. Of course when you pass a law legalizing it, it is no longer illegal search and seizure. The FBI can now legally break and enter to sneak in to your home without your knowledge or the serving of a warrant. These first began in the 1980's under the Regan administration but it wasn't made explicitly legal until the Patriot act.
The FBI can also subpoena a vast array of private information about you by merely writing a letter to themselves branding you as a terrorism suspect. They no longer need the involvement of a judge so they have shredded the constitutional checks and balances the judiciary held on the executive branch.
I really wish the Republican party and conservatives would stop spouting rhetoric about how they are the party against big government. They seem to only want to limit government intrusion in to money making by wealthy party members and to end social programs that benefit the poor. Though, as the recent Medicare bill shows they are now even in favor of big government social programs as long as most of the money is going in to the pockets of their rich friends.
When it comes to the military, spying, dirty tricks, law enforecemnt and shredding the rights of individuals the Republican party really loves the biggest, most malignant government imaginable. Of course the Democrats were bulldozed in to going along with the Patriot act so are almost equally to blame.
Perhaps you would care to actually make your case as to what was wrong in what I said instead of just saying it was BS. I'm always open to learn from my mistakes, but telling someone they are full of shit but not actually saying in what way is about the weakest form of debate you could engage in. Well its not even really debate.
The sneak and peak search provision of the Patriot Act is widely regarded as one of its most detestable parts and will be the first thing called in to question if Congress ever gets around to revisiting the Patriot Act, something I doubt they will find the backbone to do anytime soon.
Did you actually read the link in my post to the University of Georgia. I'll quote since you must not have read it before you started ranting:
Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act not only specifically grants the federal judiciary power to issue sneak and peek warrants, but also, by allowing their use for every federal crime and by placing no meaningful limits on their issuance, encourages their issuance. It may be expected that as time passes the use of such warrants will become the rule rather than the exception in federal court, and that when a conventional search warrant is issued it will almost always have been preceded by a sneak and peek warrant.... Nearly two decades ago a prescient federal judge, in a dissenting opinion, warned that sneak and peek search warrants "constitute... a dangerous and radical threat to civil rights and to the security of all our homes and persons."16 Echoing this sentiment, a law review note published three years later emphasized that sneak and peek search warrants "bestow on law enforcement agents unlimited license to rifle through a person's private residence without the owner's knowledge or consent. There is no check on agents' actions to ensure they comply"17 with protections for individual rights, and "the risk of abuse and the subsequent intrusion into privacy is... severe."18
"A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge.
What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation."
IANAL, and it may be different in the US, but in Canada there is very little protection of a person's right to own, use and enjoy property, a fact that our current Liberal government is exploiting to the fullest. Rights cannot be revoked if they are not given in the first place.
LOL! If you're going to make a ridiculous statement like that, the least you can do is back it up. Hell, I live in Canada, and, frankly, I think that, these days, our government has a better grasp on the concept of humans rights than the US.
Sigh. from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] The inclusion of a charter of rights in the constitution was a much debated issue. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau very much wanted it but many of the provincial leaders did not. Trudeau thus was forced to include the notwithstanding clause to allow provinces to opt out of certain areas of the charter. Pressure from the left in the country, especially the New Democratic Party, prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property
Who said I had to do any research? I wasn't the one who made a decidedly inflammatory statement without ANY evidence to back it up (which you kindly provided, although the last two sources seem rather biased). All I ask is that, if you're going to make a statement like that, BACK IT UP. It's not that hard.
Incidentally, my response to your post is that, yes, while Canada, in theory, doesn't protect property rights, the US, also in theory, protects the right to free speech, thus proving yet again that the
Private property is in fact an anti-right. It is a policy of restriction. It gives you the right to deny the rights of others. You really need to define what you mean by 'right.'
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:4, Interesting)
Illegal search and seizure, May 8, 2005: Homeland Defense.
Right to Private Property, September 19, 2006: Corporate Bottom Lines.
Freedom of Speech, December 2, 2003: This post.
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:1)
Public right to search suspected opposite sex, February 28,2007.
Too late (Score:2)
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:4, Interesting)
The FBI can also subpoena a vast array of private information about you by merely writing a letter to themselves branding you as a terrorism suspect. They no longer need the involvement of a judge so they have shredded the constitutional checks and balances the judiciary held on the executive branch.
I really wish the Republican party and conservatives would stop spouting rhetoric about how they are the party against big government. They seem to only want to limit government intrusion in to money making by wealthy party members and to end social programs that benefit the poor. Though, as the recent Medicare bill shows they are now even in favor of big government social programs as long as most of the money is going in to the pockets of their rich friends.
When it comes to the military, spying, dirty tricks, law enforecemnt and shredding the rights of individuals the Republican party really loves the biggest, most malignant government imaginable. Of course the Democrats were bulldozed in to going along with the Patriot act so are almost equally to blame.
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:1)
Anyone actually informed about the act and the state of law enforcement before and after its passing would know that this line is a load of BS.
The rest of your post contains a number of inaccuracies that are simply flat out the opposite of what's in the PATRIOT Act.
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:4, Informative)
The sneak and peak search provision of the Patriot Act is widely regarded as one of its most detestable parts and will be the first thing called in to question if Congress ever gets around to revisiting the Patriot Act, something I doubt they will find the backbone to do anytime soon.
Did you actually read the link in my post to the University of Georgia. I'll quote since you must not have read it before you started ranting:
Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act not only specifically grants the federal judiciary power to issue sneak and peek warrants, but also, by allowing their use for every federal crime and by placing no meaningful limits on their issuance, encourages their issuance. It may be expected that as time passes the use of such warrants will become the rule rather than the exception in federal court, and that when a conventional search warrant is issued it will almost always have been preceded by a sneak and peek warrant.
Nearly two decades ago a prescient federal judge, in a dissenting opinion, warned that sneak and peek search warrants "constitute
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:0)
What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61341 , 00
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:1)
Plenty of people out there are just as misguided as these guys.
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:2)
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:2)
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:2)
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:2)
from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The inclusion of a charter of rights in the constitution was a much debated issue. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau very much wanted it but many of the provincial leaders did not. Trudeau thus was forced to include the notwithstanding clause to allow provinces to opt out of certain areas of the charter. Pressure from the left in the country, especially the New Democratic Party, prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property
from McGill Law Journal [mcgill.ca]
the Charter does
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:2)
Incidentally, my response to your post is that, yes, while Canada, in theory, doesn't protect property rights, the US, also in theory, protects the right to free speech, thus proving yet again that the
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:1)
This is already in place. It's called "sneak & peak", and is "allowed" under the (un)Patriot Act.
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:0)
Private property is in fact an anti-right. It is a policy of restriction. It gives you the right to deny the rights of others. You really need to define what you mean by 'right.'