The 4th Amendment or Who's Smoking Dutch Cleanser ...
-
Artist:
Here's a quote from Senate Judiciary Chairman PA Republican Senator Arlen Specter. "In an interview with the Washington Post Feb. 7th 2006:":http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601463.html"If the lickspittle lawyer (I'm sorry for this folks, but he is refering to Alberto 'Seedy' Gonzales) thinks all this is legal, 'he's smoking Dutch Cleanser'":http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/opinion/11dowd.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Maureen%20Dowd&oref=sloginThat's it in a nutshell, night folks.
You want more you say. Okay I'll give you more.Open your programs to the first page where the characters in this drama are listed.The US ConstitutionHR 3162 (aka Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)AUMF (aka Authorization for Use of Military Force)President Bush US Attorney General John AshcroftGeneral Colin PowellThe US SenateThe US House of RepresentativesG. Robert BlakeyFISARICOFBINSACIAAnd Sept 11th.
This is our starting point (the 4th Amendment);*"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."*And here is Section 213 of HR 3162 (due to MOG formatting issues, I am forced to give you a link to the text);"*SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.*":http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html
Yikes, right? Here is the important statement in Sec 213:*the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result*I will touch on this later.
There is no doubt in my mind, that in the days following Sept 11th our nation gathered behind our President to give him the support to do what we all felt needed to be done to bring the perpetrators of that heinous deed to justice. I admit I was one of them. Then on Sept 18, 2001 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Joint Resolution giving the Admin. power to ask for the provisions in the US Patriot Act.Sen (D) Tom Dashle said of the AUMF and the Senates' rejection of a late change to the resolution;"this last minute change would have given the pres. broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas - where we all understood he wanted to act - but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens."Even Republican Senator Sam Brownback (KS) was concerned about AUMF (It's a linkable quote and a worthwhile story);"I do not agree with the legal basis on which [the Admin.] are basing their surveillance - that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance":http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/24/senator_bushs_spying_raises_concerns/?city_localIf you came here looking for proof that HR 3162 destroys civil liberties, I am afraid you will be disappointed. Instead I give you quotes and a feeling of general uneasiness about the Act.In fact there is a mountain of precedence that states otherwise. Warrantless searches have been going on for a long time. 35 on record for the year 1980. You just have to convince a Federal Judge you believe evidence will be destroyed by serving a warrant before the actual search. This is where the important statement about Sec 213. in HR 3162 comes into play. The highest courts have upheld numerous cases on the very precept contained in that clause, through many Administrations.I can hear you scratching your head.What I am saying is, they crafted a bill with Sections and Clauses that have already been tested by the courts. This just makes their case stronger should there be any challenges. The bees are out of the bag, who's going to put them all back?If you support the US Patriot Act, fine go ahead and support it. But please read the damn thing. If there are parts you don't understand, ask someone. If there are parts you don't agree with, tell someone. For heaven sakes it is only 342 pages long. The damn Bible is longer, not a much better read, and I can't tell you how many people have claimed to have "studied" that book. Further Reading:"HR 3162":http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html"A good Times article":http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20legal.html" Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts":http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm"Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say":http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/NYT_15cnd-program.html"AUMF":http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html"G. Robert Blakey":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Robert_Blakey"RICO":http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/rico.html"Link to other Links":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact.htm
You want more you say. Okay I'll give you more.Open your programs to the first page where the characters in this drama are listed.The US ConstitutionHR 3162 (aka Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)AUMF (aka Authorization for Use of Military Force)President Bush US Attorney General John AshcroftGeneral Colin PowellThe US SenateThe US House of RepresentativesG. Robert BlakeyFISARICOFBINSACIAAnd Sept 11th.
This is our starting point (the 4th Amendment);*"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."*And here is Section 213 of HR 3162 (due to MOG formatting issues, I am forced to give you a link to the text);"*SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.*":http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html
Yikes, right? Here is the important statement in Sec 213:*the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result*I will touch on this later.
There is no doubt in my mind, that in the days following Sept 11th our nation gathered behind our President to give him the support to do what we all felt needed to be done to bring the perpetrators of that heinous deed to justice. I admit I was one of them. Then on Sept 18, 2001 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Joint Resolution giving the Admin. power to ask for the provisions in the US Patriot Act.Sen (D) Tom Dashle said of the AUMF and the Senates' rejection of a late change to the resolution;"this last minute change would have given the pres. broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas - where we all understood he wanted to act - but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens."Even Republican Senator Sam Brownback (KS) was concerned about AUMF (It's a linkable quote and a worthwhile story);"I do not agree with the legal basis on which [the Admin.] are basing their surveillance - that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance":http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/24/senator_bushs_spying_raises_concerns/?city_localIf you came here looking for proof that HR 3162 destroys civil liberties, I am afraid you will be disappointed. Instead I give you quotes and a feeling of general uneasiness about the Act.In fact there is a mountain of precedence that states otherwise. Warrantless searches have been going on for a long time. 35 on record for the year 1980. You just have to convince a Federal Judge you believe evidence will be destroyed by serving a warrant before the actual search. This is where the important statement about Sec 213. in HR 3162 comes into play. The highest courts have upheld numerous cases on the very precept contained in that clause, through many Administrations.I can hear you scratching your head.What I am saying is, they crafted a bill with Sections and Clauses that have already been tested by the courts. This just makes their case stronger should there be any challenges. The bees are out of the bag, who's going to put them all back?If you support the US Patriot Act, fine go ahead and support it. But please read the damn thing. If there are parts you don't understand, ask someone. If there are parts you don't agree with, tell someone. For heaven sakes it is only 342 pages long. The damn Bible is longer, not a much better read, and I can't tell you how many people have claimed to have "studied" that book. Further Reading:"HR 3162":http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html"A good Times article":http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20legal.html" Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts":http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm"Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say":http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/NYT_15cnd-program.html"AUMF":http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html"G. Robert Blakey":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Robert_Blakey"RICO":http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/rico.html"Link to other Links":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact.htm
Locating MOG account...
Comments (30)
I would like to show you a great rebuttal towards pervasive surveillance and one heck of a way to exercise your 1st Amendment rights.