Gould 0738 wrote:
The thief was selling goods purchased illegally in Romania, the Netherlands,
Great Britain, an elsewhere. How do you know that it isn't a
money-producing scheme used to fund terrorism?

Thank you for making my point.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no need to establish any link to terrorism,
merely to claim that one exists.

Take search warrants, for instance. Under the Patriot Act, no judge can refuse
to grant a search warrant if the law enforcement agency mentions the word
"terrorist" anywhere in the application for such a warrant. Under the patriot
act, an initially issued search warrant can be used over, and over, and over,
and over again if the police believe the search "could be" related to an
existing investigation that "could be" related to terrorism.

The Patriot Act effectively guts the constitutional protection against illegal
search and seizure. But I guess that's OK, Bush and Ashcroft have decided we
didn't need that portion of the Bill of Rights, anyway.


Righties see the entire Bill of Rights as an encumbrance, not as the
defensive wall between the government and the citizen. In fact, righties
misinterpret the only two elements of the Bill of Rights they "believe
in," their belief that they can own whatever weapons they want, and
their belief they can shove their form of Christianity down the throats
of everyone else.

In the days not so long ago when Conservatism actually had moral and
intellectual underpinnings, such was not the case.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?