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?
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?"
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.
Quoth you, in the
other thread:
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.
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.
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:
Show me one part in there where it limits these powers, which directly amend the UCC, only to federal agencies.
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).