it does so appear


and the 2003 is only a draft form not valid in that posting

it got me again a b

I'm looking at section 1's stuff on funding. There is *no limit* to
patriot act spending. That's kinda disturbing in and of itself.


And this is the most vague and loopy legal document I've ever looked
at. You can interpret this thing to mean "everything" and "nothing" at
the same time. I can understand *why* this thing got through- I just
STILL don't get how.

Actuall it is not vague it references other laws.

The only way to check it out is to have access to those other laws.

Oh for an account at a law library!


I am going to get off here for now. I am so tired my computer keeps
vanishing then reapearing.

Thanks again adj. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.

Fair enough. That is annoying, in and of itself. But the parts where it
"defines" terrorism could include any crime that involves more than two
people.

Of course, I need to read the whole ----ing thing before making any
definitive conclusions- but thus far, the patriot act if just wacked.

well adventure just put the law referance in the search engine

and you may be able to find it

Could also be considered an act of terrorisim if you speak out in a
public forum against the established authority.

All they have to claim is that it appeared you were trying to intimidate
them. which would bring you under the 'domestic terrorism' part.

that kinda sounds familiar doesn't it

hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Try the law library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/law/public/law.html

They have some interesting information on it.

yep i was there earlier

to get an actual copy f the act type in search engine

usa patriot act of 2001

section 5a is real interesting because if you read it word for word,
you could be found guilty of terrorism just by carrying a handgun,
without the proper papers. Yes it is wrong, andyou should be punished,
but you are not a domestic terrorist just because you are moving your
handgun from one venue to another.

I have a strange take on this one. I come down on the liberal side of
the this discussion generally. Civil liberties are important.

Slippery slope,,,,
John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy, announced the administration would expand an advertising
campaign highlighting the connection between illicit drugs and terrorism
and that it would be aimed at teenagers.
A previous campaign involved television announcements that aired during
the Super Bowl. Critics said the spots overstated the connection and
were needlessly alarmist. The ads, developed by Walters' office, equated
the purchase of illegal drugs with support of terrorism.
If they take away the rights of terrorists and those who support
terrorists and then designate all who take drugs as supporters of
terror, then they take away the rights of perhaps a third of the
population, one fast move via redefinition. Smacks of chess, someone
may have been looking ahead when they wordsmithed the reduction of
liberties in the patriot act..

Just so you know.

The USA PATRIOT ACT is not about patriotism.

the name is a acyronum for...

(U)niting (and)
(S)trengthing
(A)merica (by)
(P)roviding
(A)pproiate
(T)ools
(R)equired (to)
(I)ntercept (and)
(O)bstruct
(T)errorism
__________________________________
adj > You could not find the 2003 version cause it is a complete
rewrite it is the USA PATRIOT ACT II 2003. I do not know if it was
actually approved because it is listed as confidential not for
distribution.

Someone mentioned para 5 as it pertains to handguns. It also states in
the same para 5 that persons suspected of drug use can be included in
the definition of a 'domestic terrorist' at the discretion of the FBI.
This would give them the legal authority to use this act to tap into
your phones and even get your email's and internet usage WITHOUT
NOTIFYING YOU of the warrent. They can tap into those assets for up to
a year WIHTOUT NOTIFYING YOU. After that year they can still continue
to monitor those assets WITHOUT NOTIFYING YOU if they can show to a
select group of 11 judges (3 of which must reside in the DC area)
resonable cause as to why they should be allowed to continue the
(ILLEGAL TO ME) legal by the ACT intrusion in your privacy.

And if your neigbor dosn't like you they can get up to a 5 MILLION
dollar reward for turning you in.

The more I read the scareder I gets.

Ok, I have something quirky here. I'm in job hunting mode. Of course 90
percent of it is through the internet. There are literally hundreds of
post in the on-line jobs for poeple to do international wire transfers
from home. A few hours a day gets you a base salary of 1,000 to 3,000 a
month and a few more hours and after proving your abilities up to
$20,000 a month. I get emails every day from them, having viewed my
resume on-line are recruiting me. I looked into this and found some
info in one of the .gov sights. Here's what it said.

These types of jobs are not illegal and the government can do nothing
to stop them, however, many of them are a way to 'launder funds' through
other countries, like US, Canada, Australia to fund terrorist
organizations. The information continued to say that all there is a
special commission set up to follow all these wire transfers and that,
in fact, the government is using this to keep tabs on them.

Here's the relationship to the topic. Knowing this, the information I
just gave you, if I entered into a contract with one of these
'companies' and that 'company' ended up being subject to our governments
determined punishment, say an invasion or undeclared state of war, do
you think my country would come after me as a hero, or as a treasonist
for supporting terrorist activities?
I wonder if there's anything in the Patriot Act that would clear me,
after all, the government is using these transfers to spy for themselves
- right?

Red if I am reading this thing right. (who knows it is full of legal
stuff).

If the company is laundering money for terrorists or a hostile foriegn
government or even a criminal activity you would come under the heading
of a foriegn agent. This would allow them to monitor EVERY thing you do
not just your wire transfers and would allow them to obtain taps on all
your electronic and wire (internet and phone) service through your local
subscriber service WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

You could see if they would let you qualify for the rewards and go talk
to them before you start any of these business endeavors.

Yea AB, I think you are right about that. Totally turned me off of the
venture, even though there are some legitimate companies doing
legitimate business, there's just no way of telling.

I guess my question was more like - since we really have no way of
finding this out and the govenment will not advise us or limit anyone
recruiting for these jobs, would they, the government, still be able to
charge me with treason? I only ask, because I searched the internet
for a week trying to find information on this. What I do know is that
there are poeple here doing this type of work and I'm sure they did not
look into it, as I did. I guess I think there should be more
information available to warn the general public about these kinds of
jobs, especially if it can come down to esbionage or treason.

Perhaps you should ask someone who understands the legal language in the
act. Like an attorney.

I am just a simple man. I do not even pretend to understand all of the
stuff that is buried in the act.

I have discovered that it modifies many aspects of other laws. I wonder
if that in itself is legal.

They could argue it's treasonous and that you DID know. In a court of
law, you'd never be convicted.


But they don't need to take you to a court. They can just make you
vanish for a few years.


And, yes, modifying existing laws is perfectly legal. As long as the
modifications were legally approved. Amendments are the most famous
example of this process in use.

By what I read they can initially make you vanish for only one year.
After that it must be reviewed and they must show resonable cause why
you should stay under wraps.

Until they lose the paperwork....


But, no, I think you're right.