Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

Once again you show your ignorance to the law prior to the patriot act.
The same Judicial oversight was there before the act, as after. There is a
three judge panel in WDC that has to approve any search warrant where the
owners of the property will not be notified. It has always been there, and
has always been used. No difference with the patriot act. You are just to
ignorant to know it existed before the patriot act.

Still have to have probable cause to get the warrant by the court. That my
ignorant friend is called JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:43:20 GMT, "Tom Hyslip"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

[...]

http://www.heraldonline.com/local/st...-2670334c.html
The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
most troubling:

. The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
information and medical records without having "probable cause."
Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.


CALLED JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, NO DIFFERENCE THEN GOING TO ANY OTHER
COURT
AND HAVING THE RECORD SEALED
WHICH IS DONE I [sic] ALMOST EVERY CASE


This is so startlingly Orwellian as to elevate the sagacious author to
absolute prescience:

"The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
[...] financial information and medical records without having
"probable cause."

If, indeed, the above quote is correct, I am profoundly insulted and
forever disillusioned by the audacious hubris of the small minds that
people the labyrinth that is US bureaucracy.

It makes me feel fortunate to have lived in more noble times past that
predate the marketing saturated, over populated, television steeped,
patently corrupt, sorry quagmire that today so rapidly engulfs our
once respected and capable nation. I am so revulsed by such vulgar
trampling of the ideals of freedom and equality espoused in the
documents of this nation's birth as to feel relief, that my journey
into the future is now considerably shorter then the 25% of this
nation's existence that I have thus far experienced.

Denying due process of law to US citizens is not only criminal, it is
unjust and wrong.

. Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
the government to go into someone's home or business without the
target knowing it.


SEE ABOVE

Secret and warrantless search is how you define "JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT"?
Your credibility is blown, brother.

. In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
the government links to terrorism..

AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY. NO DIFFERENCE THEN PROVIDING MONEY
TO
HITLER IN WW2


http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHG..._Bush_ Nazi_2
"Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951" - Federal Documents
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
from The New Hampshire Gazette Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message |

| How about treason, for starters? That should get their attention.
|
| Then, we could reduce the charges to "abuse of the colors of authority."
|

Treason would be an excellent start, and I would not reduce the charges.
However, I would also add 'dereliction of duty.'

I think you have missed my point entirely. I agree completely with your
last statement, but it might not be possible to nuetralize this threat
wihtout the military fighting all over the plant for a long time.

As far as the detainees in Cuba, they are treated well, and have to stay
there until the war is over. No different than any other war, except that
these detainees are not part of a uniformed military from a country. They
are terrorist who only want to end the USA.

The issue of the partiot act is another issue all together. I find the
majority of people who speak out against the act have not read, and do not
know what laws existed prior to the act. Very little changed with the
creation of the act, except making the process faster by having one court's
ruling apply in another jurisdiction. Plus allowing court orders on phone
systems and cellular phones to stay effective when a suspect crosses
jurisdictional boundaries. The one big change, the power to collect info
from libaries, etc, really in my opinion is not that big of a deal. I just
wish people would understand that all warrants, still have the proper
judicial oversight, just as before the act.


"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
.. .
"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
m...
You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
them,
there wasn't. Little evidence, correct. If not for President Bush,
and
this administration doing the right thing, instead of the popular thing,
there would be evidence all over the place from additional attacks on
our
soil.

And as far as the one sided point of the accuser, you are correct. I am
a
Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and an Officer in the Army Reserve. I
have
seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do
it
again.

You, sir, are dangerous. You have been given power and you now believe
your
opinion is more important than oversight and due process. As an officer,
what did your training and education in history teach you about the
logical
extension of such viewpoints?

Power has been set up in this country with checks and balances. As a Law
Enforcement Officer, you are subject to one very strong check and
balance -
the court system. You may fully believe you are correct, but you may be
proven fully wrong. Just because you have seen what criminals can do does
not give you the right to permanently lock up suspects on your whim.

Do you really want to start dismantling this system of checks and
balances?
Where do you think that will lead?

The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
terror
makes me sick. But the great thing about this country, freedom, the
ignorant are free to speak about subjects they have no idea, nor any
knowledge of.

So, is the only valid viewpoint whatever the administration says it is?
As
a citizen, I have a right to demand oversight of any administration,
especially in important matters such as these. And I get suspicious, in a
grand way, when the administration blocks all efforts at oversight. I do
not know if what they are doing is right or wrong, or how much, but the
foresight and planning shown so far by this administration do not give me
a
lot of confidence in their abilities and I would rather have more heads
working on this and I would like to see this done in an organized,
non-partisan manner.

But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our
civilians
in
the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
killing
them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.

I do believe you rather missed my point. I would rather this country
fight
effectively, honestly, and honorably. You are in no better position than
anybody else to know how effective the current policies will be in the
long
term. To really answer your question, what I want is to effectively
neutralize the threat, not just now but going forward, and I don't want to
have to have the military fighting battles all over the planet forever to
achieve this goal.

Enough of this. Say your response and I will leave it at that. You are
free to have the "last word" here.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
m...
They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.

Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.

As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If
you
release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
chance.

You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?

So we keep them until the war is over.

This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?

You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies,
USS
Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take
the
fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need
to
protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do
it.

There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to
protect
this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the
whole
mess being discovered as a sham?

If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then
convene
a
bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on.
(Oh,
that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save
it's
life. But others in government can.)

Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse
of
power.

Correct Iraq was because of Saddam. But now AlQueda is going into to Iraq to
fight Americans.


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Tom Hyslip" wrote:

You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
them,
there wasn't.


Oh yeah. No pink elephants. You sure kept them all away. :-)

A I have
seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do
it
again.

"All Germans during the 30s where Nazis" - right?


The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
terror


For my understanding: has the word "war" a double meaning in the english
language? "war" translates in many languages to only one understanding:
military
conflict between 2 or more countries. With all the 'rules' (declaration of
war,
POW, peace, treaties, ...).

But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our
civilians in
the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
killing
them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.

Hm, isn't the Iraq hoppala because of Saddam? Now you say it is because of
Al
Quaida. I am confused. So Afghanistan was because of what?

#m
--

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Mini-Nukes&btnG=Search+News

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message news:bpcso0|
| For my understanding: has the word "war" a double meaning in the english
| language? "war" translates in many languages to only one understanding:
military
| conflict between 2 or more countries. With all the 'rules' (declaration of
war,
| POW, peace, treaties, ...).
|

Nonsense. If that were the definition then there has never been a war in all
of history.

So when did Al Queda seek permission to attack the USA. I don't remember the
Sudan, Libya, Iran, and the other great countries in the UN giving them
permission.

I also don't recall any mention of the UN or international law in the U.S.
Consititution.

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did. Oh ya, and
we didn't have anyones permission. Maybe we shouldn't have fought against
Japan either.

People like you will always be on the wrong side of history. If this
country followed your lead we would still be in the Cold War, except it
would be against Germany and the rest of the former conitnent known as
Europe, now called the 3rd Reich.



"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Tom Hyslip" wrote:

As far as the enemy in Cuba,

it is not _prooved_ that they are all enemies. No curt no nothing.
But first hang 'em .. then ask questions.

some of you will just never get it. If you
release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
chance.
So we keep them until the war is over.


Yes, you sure are speaking of the 3 13 year old boys (still there) or the
80 or
so year old grandfather (released and back in Afghanistan).
You're my hero :-)

You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies, USS
Cole, 9/11, that is the war.

this is not war. *bahh*
this is terrorism. Wrong wording.

We need to
protect this country,

very true

and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.


as long as you interfere with international law .... or as long as you
mess
around in other countries than your own ... IBTD.

#m
--

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Mini-Nukes&btnG=Search+News

"Tom Hyslip" writes:

So when did Al Queda seek permission to attack the USA. I don't remember the
Sudan, Libya, Iran, and the other great countries in the UN giving them
permission.

I also don't recall any mention of the UN or international law in the U.S.
Consititution.

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did. Oh ya, and
we didn't have anyones permission. Maybe we shouldn't have fought against
Japan either.

Hey, Germany formally declared war on us! By the standards of the
time in international law, that's entirely adequate grounds.

And Japan committed a hostile act, to which we responded to with a
formal declaration of war, all right and proper, and fully within the
international law of the time on the topic.

Neither of which are in any way similar to what we're now doing (to
our shame) to Iraq.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

You may have forogotten the gulf war of 1991, that was authorized by the UN.
At the end of the fighting, Iraq agreed to follow certain guidelines.
However, the war never ended, it was still on going till this day, if you
read the agreement between Iraq and the Coalition. When they failed to
comply, the war is back on. That is why we are there. So, eventhough it
was not needed, your UN did authorized this war.


"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom Hyslip" writes:

So when did Al Queda seek permission to attack the USA. I don't remember
the
Sudan, Libya, Iran, and the other great countries in the UN giving them
permission.

I also don't recall any mention of the UN or international law in the
U.S.
Consititution.

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did. Oh ya,
and
we didn't have anyones permission. Maybe we shouldn't have fought
against
Japan either.

Hey, Germany formally declared war on us! By the standards of the
time in international law, that's entirely adequate grounds.

And Japan committed a hostile act, to which we responded to with a
formal declaration of war, all right and proper, and fully within the
international law of the time on the topic.

Neither of which are in any way similar to what we're now doing (to
our shame) to Iraq.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots:
www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

Tom Hyslip wrote:

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.

Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the U.S.
would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare
war on the U.S.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

Al Qaeda are moving in now in Iraq because Sadam's
tyrranical regime isn't there to oppress them any more?

Hmm.

Paul

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
. com...
Correct Iraq was because of Saddam. But now AlQueda is going into to Iraq
to
fight Americans.