Google
 

View Full Version : Fighting terror. Recent legislation here and abroad.


SpabSFW
11-09-2005, 08:28 PM
Congress May Curb Some Patriot Act Powers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act

WASHINGTON - Congress is moving to curb some of the police powers it gave the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including imposing new restrictions on the FBI's access to private phone and financial records.

...

Polls show that most Americans do not distinguish between the Patriot Act and the war on terror, and a majority knows little about the four-year-old law. But the more Americans know about the Patriot Act, the less they like.

A poll conducted in August by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut showed that almost two-thirds of all Americans, 64 percent, said they support the Patriot Act. But only 43 percent support the law's requirement that banks turn over records to the government without judicial approval; 23 percent support secret searches of Americans' homes without informing the occupants for a period of time.



****************

Blair suffers stinging defeat on anti-terror legislation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051109/ts_afp/britainattackspolitics_051109181711

LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair was dealt a stinging blow as British MPs heavily rejected a core aspect of his anti-terrorist legislation to inflict his first parliamentary defeat since he took power in 1997.

In a vote in the House of Commons, lawmakers rejected a plan to allow the police to hold terror suspects for up to three months without charge.

The defeat was all the more severe as Blair had put his personal authority on the line to pull his party with him, and cited a "compelling" case made by police in the wake of the July 7 London suicide bombings....

h2g2Fan
11-09-2005, 08:32 PM
Everything you need to know about the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization here (http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/10/200510255.html).

86Dude
11-09-2005, 08:41 PM
Anyone who supports the patriot act in government deserves to be hung.

h2g2Fan
11-09-2005, 09:19 PM
Anyone who supports the patriot act in government deserves to be hung.
That's everyone in the Senate except for Russ Feingold.

Patrician
11-09-2005, 10:33 PM
Everything you need to know about the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization here (http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/10/200510255.html).

Biased source.

86Dude
11-09-2005, 10:35 PM
That's everyone in the Senate except for Russ Feingold.

So be it.

SpabSFW
11-09-2005, 10:36 PM
Anyone think it's a trend for future legislation, assuming no new terror attacks, or is it coincidental and not necessarily a meaningful predictor of the short-term future?

Patrician
11-09-2005, 10:37 PM
Its a shame that Blair's proposals were shot down today. Its actually total insanity. The goverment is basically giving the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists.

And of course the left-wingers are against the patriot act. Their worldview is based on the idea that "America" causes terrorism. Therefore the only thing that will stop the terrorists is to surrender to them and apoligize for existing. Anything less will simply offend them worse than they already are.

86Dude
11-09-2005, 10:47 PM
I fear big brother more than I do any allah worshipper with a bomb on his back.

SpabSFW
11-09-2005, 10:50 PM
I fear big brother more than I do any allah worshipper with a bomb on his back.


We are once again in agreement. :nice:

Patrician
11-09-2005, 10:51 PM
I fear big brother more than I do any allah worshipper with a bomb on his back.

Methinks that depends on the size of the bomb...

GROFF200
11-10-2005, 10:21 AM
Hey, rubicon....don't you think that maybe the US had something to do with terrorism in the middle east?
After all, the US has made it a point to support dictators and various other regimes in the region. Couldn't that have had something to do with making the US the target of terrorist attacks?
Granted, it doesn't mean the US made a guy come over with a bomb and blow up things. But, to claim that the US is completely innocent with regards to terrorism is a bit naive and misleading I think.

lilnymph
11-10-2005, 11:17 AM
I agree with the shooting down of the 3 months being held without charge. Its possible that 7 Days isn't long enough in a complicated terror case, but i would say at most a month is enough to hold someone WITHOUT CHARGE. Surely if you can't atleast build enough of a case to charge them in a month, your not going too? And I would say a month is the upmost, I would prefer less time. Remember your talking about people who haven't even been charged yet.

Hugs

lilnymph

Google