PDA

View Full Version : A Sad Day for America



johnnymk
10-25-2001, 03:01 AM
What does the flag stand for now?

House Passes Anti-Terror Compromise
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House approved legislation Wednesday to give police new search powers in response to last month's terrorist attacks, including the ability to secretly search homes, tap all of a person's telephone conversation and track people's use of the Internet.The Senate plans to vote on the measure Thursday, hoping to get it ready for President Bush's signature before the end of the week.``I expect a pretty overwhelming vote, and that's how it should be,'' Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., said.The president praised the quick passage of the legislation by the House, saying in a statement, ``I look forward to signing this strong bipartisan plan into law so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks.''Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have been calling for legislation to expand the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority, impose stronger penalties on those who harbor or finance terrorists and increase punishments of terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.The GOP-controlled House gave strong support to the bill, passing it by 357-66 despite critics' concerns about compromising civil liberties.In order to get a deal with the Senate, House leaders dumped the House Judiciary Committee's GOP-Democratic compromise with more civil liberties and privacy provisions for a modified Senate version negotiated with the Justice Department and the White House.``This legislation is not perfect, and the process is not one that all will embrace,'' House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Tuesday. ``However, these are difficult times. ... This legislation is desperately needed.''But the new legislation is ``not just limited to terrorism,'' argued Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va. ``Had it been limited to terrorism, this bill could have passed three or four weeks ago without much discussion.''The legislation expands the federal government's power to inspect educational records, wiretap all of a person's telephone conversations instead of just certain telephone numbers, track e-mails, seize voice mails, and detain immigrants suspected of being terrorists. Critics say it goes too far.``This legislation is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties,'' said Laura Murphy, head of the American Civil Liberty Union's Washington office.But senators say the House-Senate compromise is a good one.``It's a good bill and I am very pleased with the work product here,'' Daschle said.Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith had threatened to block final approval of the anti-terrorism bill to force the House to fix a law that bans federal prosecutors from using techniques allowed by federal law but banned under ethics rules enforced by state bar associations.In Oregon, ethics rules prohibit attorneys from using deceit. Federal prosecutors say that means wiretaps and other covert methods cannot be used in that state.But Wyden, a Democrat, and Smith, a Republican, decided not to interfere with the bill after getting assurances from the White House and Daschle that a fix would be considered later. The two Oregon senators also got their amendment placed on the Senate's foreign aid spending bill, which now goes to the House for negotiations.---=The bill number is H.R. 3162. On the Net: Bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov

oblongmelon
10-25-2001, 04:58 AM
Hasn't the FBI and CIA been doing these exact things for years though? If you think it hasn't happened till now then you my friend are in need of some swampland erm...farmland in florida-which i Just happen to have to sell to you..While indeed the bill will allow for less freedom,less privacy, I highly doubt joe q. publique has anything to worry about..Who knows. Just stay off porn sights and stop sending those hang up calls to Hillary and you'll be fine.

pennypinch
10-25-2001, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by oblongmelon
Hasn't the FBI and CIA been doing these exact things for years though? If you think it hasn't happened till now then you my friend are in need of some swampland erm...farmland in florida-which i Just happen to have to sell to you..While indeed the bill will allow for less freedom,less privacy, I highly doubt joe q. publique has anything to worry about..Who knows. Just stay off porn sights and stop sending those hang up calls to Hillary and you'll be fine.

Since when was I not allowed to visit porn sites?

Ever heard of unreasonable searches and seizures? We have things like that written into a sort of non-descript document called the GODDAMN CONSTITUTION.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court whacks this one into the bottomless pit it belongs in. Can they still do that?

Markel
10-25-2001, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by pennypinch
I sincerely hope the Supreme Court whacks this one into the bottomless pit it belongs in. Can they still do that?
I don't think the Supreme Court can just step in and declare something to be unconstitutional. A challenge or case has to be appealed to them to rule on it (or conflicting rulings between two federal district courts). At least, that's the way I think it works.

Blu
10-25-2001, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by pennypinch


Since when was I not allowed to visit porn sites?

Ever heard of unreasonable searches and seizures? We have things like that written into a sort of non-descript document called the GODDAMN CONSTITUTION.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court whacks this one into the bottomless pit it belongs in. Can they still do that?


Ever hear of covert ops? Do you think ever case of unreasonable search and seizure has made it to the courts. Do you actually believe that the governement adheres to the rules?

TBG

zenbooty
10-25-2001, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Markel

I don't think the Supreme Court can just step in and declare something to be unconstitutional. A challenge or case has to be appealed to them to rule on it (or conflicting rulings between two federal district courts). At least, that's the way I think it works.

No, the supreme court has the authority to stop any bill passed by Congress before it can become law if they deem it unconstitutional.

BrewMaster
10-25-2001, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by pennypinch



I sincerely hope the Supreme Court whacks this one into the bottomless pit it belongs in. Can they still do that?

Congress is probably going to pass a bill banning the Supreme Court and giving police the power to overthrow the supreme courst and any other governement institution all in the name of "national security." What is our damn nation coming to. Welcome to the first step in a police-state.

*whoosh* What was that? Oh...that was just our civil liberties flting out the window.

Burzhui
10-25-2001, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by zenbooty


No, the supreme court has the authority to stop any bill passed by Congress before it can become law if they deem it unconstitutional.

yep checks and balances

hapoo
10-25-2001, 12:34 PM
*sigh*
Is it just me or is everything good about this country gradually slipping through our fingers?