Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theking
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.
|
The provisions of the USA PATRIOT act directly rewrite portions of the criminal code. Thus, all law enforcement, I repeat,
all law enforcement can and will use these provisions. There is no special "patriot act police" that have these powers handed down from on high. Even Dpty. Cleetus in Bumblefuck, Idaho has these rights, if he gets it in his head that the "hahahahahahas down the end of Buffalo road have one of them thar crack houses in it".
Read the bill. Take some time and actually READ the damn thing.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Which you persist on dodging.
Quote:
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.
|
"EXPANDED"? It's curtailed the protections of the 4th amendment in the most egregious way!
You're bordering on Orwell-style 'doublespeak' now.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And in the meantime? You've already tried to float the canard in the other post that these things would be 'sunset', which they have not been. The supreme court is now in danger of being skewed hard right by what is sure to be a neverending stream of evangelical, activist judges. This is a good thing?
Quote:
|
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".
|
Ahhh... I see. So once you're a suspect... not a CRIMINAL, mind you, just a suspect, then you're lumped in with the terrorists and any rights you had have been trumped. Where's the presumption of innocence? Are you in such dire dire fear of the brown man that you'd throw away due process for some artificial sensation of safety?
Here's a hypothetical situation. Let us assume that you had a female companion, and let us also assume that the relationship went sour and ended with a large amount of raised voices and acrimony after one particular night of kinky sex.
Let us further assume that this woman is so pissed at being unceremoniously dumped that she goes to the police and claims you raped her in your last encounter. She has physical evidence to support her claim: lubrication, perhaps genetic material. If you were particularly frisky, she may even have some bruises on the arms. If she were particularly evil, she may get some additional bruises from a sympathetic third party with which to railroad you.
At this point, by your reckoning, you're a criminal suspect and therefore have no rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Your rights are forfeit. Police can, at any time, enter your home, your vehicle, your place of work seeking evidence to support this woman's claim against you and take any and all physical evidence they feel is of import... perhaps you took pictures of this woman and had them on a CD: They take your computer, your CDs, and your camera. They don't need to tell you that they're there or even that they've BEEN there; as far as you know, you've been robbed. If they have 'resonable suspicions' that you conspired with other people to perform this 'crime', they can tap all of your phones, and move that tap to your place of work (roving wire taps).
All this is entirely within the realm of possibility of these laws as written. The USA PATRIOT act enshrines in law the de facto
presumption of guilt, and gives law enforcement, everyday, average law enforcement, the tools to fulfill that presumption.
Quote:
|
I have my thinking and you have yours.
|
Indeed. I believe in innocence until guilt is proven. Pity that you feel that criminal suspects don't deserve any rights. You'd best hope you never 'fit the description' of a perpetrator in the future... you might just find yourself on the shit-end of the scenarios you currently applaud.