This Just In. The System Works!

Well, here is the proof. With a Saudi national that fibbed on his visa application no less. He’s a free man. A genuine "Patriot Act Survivor". Enjoying First Amendment rights and protection not afforded to his fellow countrymen (and definitely women) back home. What was that annoying line of Yakov Smirnoff’s? “What a Country!�

To the Patriot Act paranoiacs. A plea. Can we now begin to tone down the hysteria? Just a bit anyway?

< a href = http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040611/ap_on_re_us/computer_terrorism_11&printer=1>

"There was a lack of hard evidence," said juror John Steger. "There was no clear-cut evidence that said he was a terrorist, so it was all on inference."

Comments

Not only that....

Not only that, it was in Idaho! I used to live there and it is often unfairly derided as being too conservative and by (false) implication racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc...

To clarify something, he will be deported (and rightly so).

We won't tone down till DOJ does

In the article you cited:"[US Attorney] Moss rejected any suggestion that the verdict would stifle the government's pursuit of terrorism supporters."You don't just need people who will strap on bombs and walk into crowds. You need people to support them. For terrorism to flourish they have to have a communications network," Moss said. "This was a case as prosecutors we're expected to pursue.""-------------------As long as we have statutes and prosecutors that say that speech can be the same thing as "providing material support for terrorism", then no, I don't see any reason to start supporting USAPA.What happens if Hilary becomes President and has her AG declare declare zealous pro-life groups as terrorists? We haul priests off to jail because a board they sponsored had some kooks on it?The "material support" statute is just too vague and this case proves is already contributing to a waste of resources.

Re:We won't tone down till DOJ does

What happens if Hilary becomes President and has her AG declare declare zealous pro-life groups as terrorists?

Daniel, you have inadvertently proven one of my points. That being that the PA is nothing new and certainly not as draconian as some would portray. Or as speech stifling as compared to existing law.

There is no need to imagine your scenario here.
It has already happened.

Now the sad part. Absolutely no outcry here about RICO and free speech. Why not?

Sure you haven't proved my point?

I knew and welcomed the Supreme Court decision on RICO. I suppose there's little outcry about RICO & free speech here because 1) The Supreme Court did rule last year that using against peaceful protesters wasn't appropriate and 2) RICO does not appear to be a weapon of choice in this administration's stuggle against protesters.I think I wrote something in these pages about RICO around January, but I'm not sure.Since you admit political use of RICO, what's to keep future administrations from abusing PA? Particularly when the inappropriate uses of RICO can be tracked in open court, and many uses of PA are either dealt with in the secret FISA court or use statistics are held as classified information.Seems to me that you've made my point rather than vice versa, but this is strictly my opinion.

Syndicate content