|
Grex > Agora46 > #143: ACLU Files First Challenge to USA PATRIOT Act | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 61 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 50 of 61:
| 
Sep 15 01:02 UTC 2003 |
Can't say I'm surprised, after seeing how RICO has been used in
abortion-rights cases.
|
tod
|
|
response 51 of 61:
|
Sep 15 06:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 52 of 61:
|
Sep 15 12:58 UTC 2003 |
According to the article, the fear is that the government "soon
will be" using anti-terrorism laws to prosecute run-of-the-mill
cases, not that they currently are. In other words, we're on a
slippery slope.
So, the US is supposed to take its cue from European law? Is that
what you're saying?
As for me, I share the concerns voiced by the ACLU and others,
including such flaming liberals as William Safire. I've kept my
ACLU membership current and sent them additional donations as
well.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 61:
|
Sep 15 13:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 54 of 61:
|
Sep 15 23:02 UTC 2003 |
Re: #52 We're not just on a slippery slope - we're skiing! ;-)
I couldn't find the article of a few days ago, in the NYT, I believe,
where it was reported how the Patriot Act was being used to gather
evidence for ordinary (non-terrorist) crime. But here is a quote from an
article dated 9/7/03 from the Dallas Morning News.
"Though the government has not revealed most of the details of how it has
applied the Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress in May that
it is using the law in criminal cases, not just terrorism investigations.
Federal agents have used the new tools to seize a con man's assets; track
down computer hackers and a fugitive; identify the hoaxster who made a
school bomb threat, and monitor kidnappers' communications, the department
advised the House Judiciary Committee.
In-house documents show that prosecutors are exploring other ways to use
Patriot Act authorities in criminal investigations."
The full on-line article is at:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6716551.htm
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 61:
|
Sep 15 23:41 UTC 2003 |
So, "terrorism" was just used an excuse for negating many of the normal
protections for civil rights. That was to be expected.
|
gull
|
|
response 56 of 61:
|
Sep 16 00:03 UTC 2003 |
Re #49:
> Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which
> defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance
> that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious
> injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
So you could get 12 years to life for posessing battery acid?
I had a feeling we were all being played for suckers when this law was
passed. It was never really about terrorism.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 57 of 61:
|
Sep 16 02:33 UTC 2003 |
A few months ago, Time did a piece on Mr. Franklin, including his famous
statement about sacrificing liberty for security. Congress really should have
known better.
|
lynne
|
|
response 58 of 61:
|
Sep 16 13:14 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm. Looks like it's probably illegal to be a chemist.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 59 of 61:
|
Sep 16 15:09 UTC 2003 |
Not just that - many people possess sodium hypochlorite and/or gasoline,
both of which can cause death or serious injury, and which are certainly both
toxic.
|
dah
|
|
response 60 of 61:
|
Sep 16 22:01 UTC 2003 |
And of course water is a chemical as much as any other and can cause death,
Etc., but maybe I caused misinterpretation.
|
other
|
|
response 61 of 61:
|
Sep 17 04:18 UTC 2003 |
Really. If that is the legal basis for those convictions, then the
convicted's counsel was incompetent.
|