Re: "smoked salmon socialists"

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Rubystars wrote:
> >>>You're right. I disagree with things like the patriot act because
> >>>I feel that it has the potential to erode private citizen's freedom and
> >>>privacy.
> >>
> >>Any specific instances in which this is happening or likely to happen?
> >
> > I oppose it on principle. I dont' like the government to have too much power
> > over individual citizens.
>
> What specific part of it do you oppose?
>
> Many of the tools the Act provides to law enforcement to fight
> terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime
> and drug dealers, and have been reviewed and approved by the
> courts. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor
> debate about the Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to
> investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate
> terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for
> the mob should be good for terrorists." (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01)
> http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
>
> Much of what's actually changed are issues related to "keeping up with
> technology," streamlining warrant processes, and improving inter-agency
> cooperation. You don't want agencies to cooperate? Even one of the
> Democrat Presidential candidates thinks they should:
> As Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said about the Patriot Act, "we
> simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the
> right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is
> doing." (Press release, 10/26/01)
> [same reference]
>
> I hear people complain about the Patriot Act all the time, but they
> won't (or can't) tell me specifically why it bothers them. When I
> explain its key provisions, they actually agree those are good measures.
> Go figure.

http://www.google.ie/search?q=patriot+act+unconstitutional&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1

Take your pick.