S'mee wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:21 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
SNIP

## With what part of the Patriot Act do you have a problem?

It's uncostitutional and doesn't work... Not to mention it's completly
unworkable, stupid and indefensable from a rational point of view.

I keep asking "what part" and you keep saying "IT." The Patriot Act is a
collection of modifications to some sixty-odd existing laws. "IT" can't be
unconstitutional because there is no "IT."

"Unworkable?" Hardly. On the morning of 9/11, FBI agents fanned out across
Boston, visiting hotels and asking for the names of guests who had checked
out that morning. They theorized that if they could find a match between
guests and airline manifests, they'd have a clue as to where to look next,
perhaps preventing additional incidents. In each case they were refused, the
hotels citing 'privacy' rules. Of course there is no 'right to privacy' for
ordinary business records, but the FBI had no way of compelling production.
Now, with "National Security Letters," they do.

Another change was to the issuance of warrants for telephone intercepts. The
last change to the rules for warrants was made in the '70s and did not
account for mobile phones. Criminals knew this and used disposable phones or
telephones while on the move. Now, law enforcement can get a warrant to
eavesdrop on an person, irrespective of that person's method of
communication. This is particularly important for another reason: previous
law required that law enforcement get a warrant from the incumbent federal
district. When the criminal moved around, this requirement became a
logistical nightmare in that there are 52 federal judicial districts in the
U.S. Now a warrant issued by one federal judge is good anywhere, even while
the drug lord is making a call from his Gulfstream as he transverses the
country.

You are partially correct about (parts of) the Act being unconstitutional. A
few (like three) sections have been struck down by the courts. Some new
features were added (attacks on mass transportation systems, use of a
biological toxin, harboring terrorists, etc.). In the main, however, the PA
is but a modernization of several already-existing laws; some were expanded,
some were merely updated.



Anyway are YOU afraid of terrorists? I'm not...they can't do a thing
we don't do better already. The Twin towers? 3k+ causualties? So what
it's just a building and we murder more americans on our freeways
every year. It only got attention because it happened on one day in a
spectacular manner that hollyweird could have done better.

I'm not afraid of terrorists either. I just want to capture and kill them.
I'll settle for killing without capture, but it's really a plus to see them
writhe in pain. To the degree that the PA makes it possible to stick
pointy-things into terrorist's bodies, I'm for it.



So tell me what is so great about the UNPatriotic act? Nothing that's
what Homeland security is a joke and should be a MINOR part of
FEMA...I said that when they came out with it and I stand by it now.
Anybody that supports it is either an idiot or a member of the
National Socialist Democratic Party or in simple words for a simple
minded moron "NAZI's"

I call "Godwin!"



OH by the way...my houses are bigger than yours. For that matter there
is NOTHING you have that is better than anything I have and I EARNED
it all by working not just hard but SMART. something a pathetic
dribble of spittle like you could never achieve and before that I
defended this country because I could. You aren't even homosexual
enought to defend our constitution you hateful loser.

And this applies exactly how to the PA?

Those who resort to insulting their debate opponent have lost the debate.