Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theking
I have read it more than once and have followed all hearings held that involves the Patriot Act...and you are mis-representing the Patriot Act.
|
Name one element of my interpretations of the patriot act that are 'misrepresentations'.
- Are only 'special officers' entitled to use these new powers (as you claim), or are they available to all law enforcement officers?
- Are police now, or are they not, allowed to enter your place of work, residence, or other property without requirement to disclose their presence as clearly defined in section 213 of the USA PATRIOT act?
You clearly find my perspective on this 'misleading', based on... what, exactly? The fact that you don't agree?
Quote:
|
No...I have not doged anything...only in your mind.
|
You dodged a direct question in the prior thread, and you mealy-mouthed a response in this one. Here's the correct way to answer a yes or no question: "Yes", or "No". You are permitted to add 'sir' afterwards.
The question is, paraphrased for simplicity:
"Do you believe that rights have been lost during this administration?"
Quote:
|
It most definitely has not "curtailed" the protections of the 4th amendment. It has altered the 4th to some extent. Permission of the Courts are still required to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act
|
The 'alterations' have given the police the ability to invade your property and take your shit and not even tell you why or tell you why they're doing it. Being presented with a warrant at time of search and seizure was one right you were afforded by the fourth amendment and centuries of case law that has now been removed.
"Altered" looks, flies and quacks like a duck called 'curtailed' in this instance.
Quote:
|
I did not "try to float the canard in the other post that these things would be 'sunset'. Another mis-representation by you. FYI...historically it is repeatedly been proven that the Justices of the Supreme court are not at all predictable.
|
Quoth you, in the
other thread:
Quote:
|
BTW...most of the "extraordinary" parts of the Patriot Act had "Sunset" clauses. Just recently the Sentate Judicial Committee held hearings on the Patriot Act and said "Sunset" clauses. I watched the entireity of the hearings on C-Span.
|
You claim to have read the act. If so, then you would have known that section 213 was NOT part of the sunset provisions and precisely the point at issue here. Thus, it was a canard, a straw man argument that served no purpose but to distract from the main point.
As to the 'neverending stream of right wingers' comment, that was in reference to the people Bush will likely nominate, following HIS established pattern of behaviour.
Quote:
|
FYI...the presumption of innocence is a legal term and only applies with in a court. I do not fear any man...and/or any organization. My life has been at risk far to many times to be very fearful of anything. The Patriot Act does not eliminate due process...but in some instances may change the known definition of due process. FYI...the world is in flux...the interpretation of the Constitution has always been in flux and the Constitution was not wrttten in stone...thus the power to admend.
|
If you had no fear of terrorists and/or criminals, you would see no need to change the laws. Fear underlies the entire structure of this administration, and fear is often the root cause for many of those that support it (with greed rounding up the rest).
I'm not without fear, but I fear far more an increasingly reckless and totalitarian state than disgruntled brown people.
Quote:
|
Your senario is not applicable and is more than ridiculous and is a mis-representation of the use of the Patriot Act. It will be government agents that seek the enforcement of the Patriot Act...after having received the permission of a Federal Judge.
|
It is absolutely applicable, although obviously highly contrived. These provisions are available to any law enforcement agent at any time for any crime, NOT LIMITED TO FEDERAL AGENTS. Where do you get the idea that there's limits on this to only federal agents? Wherever it's from, that source is in error.
Quoth DIRECTLY from the section itself:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by USA PATRIOT act, section 213
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
|
Show me one part in there where it limits these powers, which directly amend the UCC, only to federal agencies.
Quote:
|
This is the end to any further intercourse with you about the Patriot Act as you are now just using rhetorical BS.
|
The rhetorics are purely for illustrative purposes, and I challenge you to find a single aspect of the act that would deny its plausability.
I do not talk out of my ass on these matters, sir. I bother to inform myself and arm myself to the teeth with all available information before posting on elements of fact and public record. The pure fact is that section 213 allows police, as defined clearly above, to enter and procure property without informing you why, where or when.
The USA PATRIOT act has converted a right, enshrined into the UCC, to be exempt from police wandering through your house into a privilage to be revoked at any time on any suspicion by any law enforcement branch, dependant on the attitude of a judge at a given point in time. In fact, if they can get a federal judge to rubberstamp things, that judge need not even be in physical proximity of you (section 219). Perhaps this is the source of your belief that only federal forces have these extended abilities... 219 doesn't limit the scope of the act only to federals, it extends the ability of federals to act without geographical limitation IN ADDITION to giving local law enforcement those extra abilities (such as 213).