Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rickholio
I'm still astounded how you can claim that an everyday beat cop can enter your home, without your knowledge or receipt of a warrant, to snoop around and remove any physical items thought to be related to the case is not something that affects the 'average joe'. Remember, there's no special requirement for you to get the 'sneak and peek' treatment... you need only be suspected of a crime. You might want to read the act itself and its various analyses.
My conclusions about your stance are 100% accurate based on your commentary to this point. You may want to review your comments.
To remind you, my last question was this:
I'm still waiting for an answer on this. Are you finally prepared to give one?
|
It will not be an every day "beat cop" acting upon the provisions of the Patriot Act. I approve of the the fact that one need only be suspected of a crime. I want people that are suspected of crimes and/or "terroist" activities investigated. Your average Joe citizen is not going to be suspected of a crime...so it does not affect your average Joe citizen.
As to the answer to your last question. I thought that I had answered it in a multitude of ways but you apparently want some kind of a direct black or white answer.
Your question...
How can you reasonably claim that personal freedoms were not abridged by this one thing alone?
You can call it an "abridgement"...it certainly has expanded upon the 4th admendment. Ultimately it will be the Sumpreme Court that decides if provisions of the Patriot Act are within the Constitution and it has already done so in some instances either by not hearing a case and kicking it back down to the decision of a lower court or deciding upon its own.
The "abridgement" is not designed to affect every day Joe citizen and I am in favor of "abridging" the rights of suspect criminals and or "terrorists".
I have my thinking and you have yours.