RE: Discuss the facts of the potential law not the politics!

["Bruce Preudhomme" <brucep@pop.kis.net>]

Edward--I apologize, I was not calling you an idiot. I guess I was showing
my frustration with how this list has been misused by a few...

I agree with your comment on how this proposed legislation is enforced. And
I might add that it  also depends on how the legislation gets enacted...

Regarding your comments on "reasonable suspicion", I would hope that the
requirement that a court order is required would help to minimize abuse. But
unfortunately it is a proven fact that when the power and administration of
justice is put in the hands of some individuals, it is sometimes abused
(this is often attributed to human nature).

A quote I heard over the weekend from the Justice Dept. is that this
proposed legislation is still a "work in progress". In other words it is
still being refined and it will get refined again by our legislative branch.
And ultimately it will most likely get challenged in our judicial system
once it is enacted and enforced. That is all part of the system of checks
and balances we have in this country.

Sincerely,
Bruce Preudhomme, a law abiding, tax paying, American citizen
who believes in the founding principles of this country that declare us
to be INNOCENT until proven guilty, and that guaranty our right to
life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
Been vicitimized by a bank? then Visit
http://www.pcpursuits.com/chevy/default.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: noprivacy@essential.org [mailto:noprivacy@essential.org]On Behalf
Of Edward Britton
Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 12:10 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
Subject: Re: Discuss the facts of the potential law not the politics!


Bruce:

>Any mindless idiot can post a link, why not discuss the facts, the real
>issues, how this law is different than court orders to do wiretaps, search
>and seisures, etc.?!?!?!?!?!?

Fortunately, I am not the "idiot" to which you refer, but I do have some
points to ponder. Insofar as the proposed legislation is enforced within
the constitutional restrictions regarding unlawful search and seizure--and
additionally complies with mandates regarding the procurement of search
warrants--your point is valid.

Now, however, we shall have to consider what constitutes reasonable
suspicion. Will, for example, the publication of opinions through e-mail
and web pages of a "radical right wing" nature (while not necessarily
promulgating "hate" speech) be considered reasonable suspicion?

Looks to me like we have opened yet another Pandorah's Box of federal
invasion of civil rights, but then I'm biased :-)

Edward   ><+>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong." Dennis Miller
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html
Reality Pump: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~