This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot
Act
and some of its ramifications.

18 U.S.C. 3121-3127 (Chapter 206).
The government no longer need apply to a court for a search warrant before
monitoring the use of a US citizen's phone. All that is necessary is for the
government to "certify" that the information collected is
"likely to be" revelant to the investigation of a crime (of any kind).

So much for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

As far as Jose Padilla's situation and the impact of the Patriot Act, try
Googling up
"Jose Padilla patriot act." Out of the couple of hundred or so hits, there are
some excellent, scholarly, examinations of the case. Most presented far better
than I could begin to attempt.



http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp

On 20 Dec 2003 00:49:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot
Act
and some of its ramifications.

18 U.S.C. 3121-3127 (Chapter 206).
The government no longer need apply to a court for a search warrant before
monitoring the use of a US citizen's phone. All that is necessary is for the
government to "certify" that the information collected is
"likely to be" revelant to the investigation of a crime (of any kind).

So much for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

As far as Jose Padilla's situation and the impact of the Patriot Act, try
Googling up
"Jose Padilla patriot act." Out of the couple of hundred or so hits, there are
some excellent, scholarly, examinations of the case. Most presented far better
than I could begin to attempt.



http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp

I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site:

"An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the
executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three
decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It
states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United
States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from
Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

Yes, Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, which says that non-citizens suspected of
terrorism can be detained, but only for seven days. After that, they have to be
released or charged, unless the attorney general certifies every six months that
they present a security risk. Two months earlier, Congress had passed a
resolution empowering the president to use all necessary force against the 9/11
terrorists. But that resolution surely did not give the administration
unfettered discretion to detain citizens without charge. If it had, then the
ensuing PATRIOT Act would have afforded more protection to aliens than to
citizens. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, that proposition is incredible."

This seems to make it pretty clear that the Patriot Act was not the basis for
the detention of Padilla. It also provides an indication of why there are so
many hits when googling "jose padilla patriot act" (without the quotes, of
course).


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site:

"An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit
the
executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than
three
decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code.
It
states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United
States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from
Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive
branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be
able to do illegal things to citizens?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site:

"An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit
the
executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than
three
decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code.
It
states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United
States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from
Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive
branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be
able to do illegal things to citizens?



Because he spent his career in the military. And that's not a flip answer.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:05 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site:

"An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit
the
executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than
three
decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code.
It
states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United
States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from
Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive
branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be
able to do illegal things to citizens?



Because he spent his career in the military. And that's not a flip answer.

Typical.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:05:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .


I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site:

"An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit
the
executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than
three
decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code.
It
states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United
States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from
Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive
branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be
able to do illegal things to citizens?

The executive branch should bot be able to do illegal things to citizens. Did I
say somewhere that it should? I simply presented the rationale used for
Padilla's detention.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are looking for an
argument, based on reading only part of the posts, look elsewhere.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD