OK....didn't read this post past the first page......a couple of thoughts

>Go buy the book "Give Me A Break" by John Stossel.....very good reading....I FINALLY found someone that agrees with 95% of my beliefs!

You may want to read it with an open mind before you vote next time.....

>As to Iraq....for those of you against the war, I ask you a couple of things:
.....if there were "no weapons of mass destruction, how did all of those Kurds die????
.....I don't like war....but I think you should look at history..in 1938-39, most were opposed to taking on Hitler.....and look what happened because everyone chose to look the other way.
......talk to a few people that are over in Iraq....I do with regularity..and the thing that bothers me is I'm getting a different story from those over there versus what the media is telling America...Iraq is better off today than it was over the past 25 years....yes, the killing continues, but that's terrorism......and if we were to leave Iraq, do you seriously believe the terrorism would stop???

 

I'm with Scott on what he says, I had a freind over there who just came home in January. He tells me totally different things than you hear on the news.

 

I'm going to say the same thing. A guy up at work just got back. His account pretty much tells the same story said here.

 

While I realize that you probably weren't directing that post at me personally, I still don't appreciate the general public's view that anyone not liking Bush or his administration is "anti-war".
I'm just picking this post to reply to because your "standing" in this public forum gives you more responsibility to speak and act as a role model. Not a personal flame here Red, just a point-at-large.

To this day, I have never said a word about us finally taking down Saddam... NEVER. I wanted the bastard gone in 1991 - but SOMEBODY didn't finish the job the first time.
Do I agree with the way we did it - NO.
I don't think the administration did the proper planning or analytical work to complete the job. I don't think they had proper resources (still don't, either). There are numerous conservative resources from Congress to military staff that have all said this job was underestimated from the outset.

And AGAIN - I DON'T apprecite being lied to - period.
Yes Saddam used gas agents on the Kurds (I am the one who mentioned it in my earlier post), but that wasn't done in 2001 gents. That was done just after the Persian gulf war was "over", and it actually resulted in the famed "No Fly Zone" that we - the US - have been patroling and defending since 1992.

So to all the "Bush sympathizers", what explanation do you offer for Hans Blix publicly stating that the UN found no WMD's in the weeks leading up to the war, and have found no traces of them since? Do you REALLY think that the US didn't have satellites watching the traffic and activity of the surrounding borders for months - even years - leading up to this war? Do we forget that Colin Powell REFUSED to read a prepared press release about WMD's because HE KNEW IT WAS NOT TRUE?!?! He actually threw his papers into the air and claimed he was not going to read this BS. He then insisted that CIA director George Tenet sit beside him during testimony to be sure he shared in any blame due to misinformation. Shall I bother to go and find a link for you all? See Congressional Briefings, 5Feb2003, Powell, Tenet.
Heck, I'll do you one better... Here's a link to a news peice just out that is just as bad.
Quote"Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged on Friday that the "most dramatic" part of his presentation to the United Nations making the case for war on Iraq was based on flawed intelligence. "

Ya know, I think I'd actually vote for Powell if he was running, because at least as of now, he is the only one on either side that has demonstrated some level of dignity and honesty - despite how it could affect his political career or public stature. I give him

And while we are at it, somebody help me understand how Bush and his administration so tightly linked Saddam to the 9/11 activities? Aside from Bush and his press secretary saying so, I have yet to see anyone else say this, or produce evidence.

Yes, Saddam was/is a slimy bastard who should be lynched IMO - I have no reserved thoughts about it. But convict people for the crimes which they commit, not ones you think they might do or wish they did. His actions of genecide against the Kurds was reason enough - all alone - to convict him of war crimes and genecide in a hearing at the Haig, and sentence him to death... Period. Same could apply for his unwaranted invasion into Kuwait. Same could apply for his lobbing SCUD missiles at Europe. So go bust his *** for these crimes - I'm right there with you! DON'T make up some silly BS-story about how he helped orchestrate 9/11 or how he is still after Nukes - It's a friggin LIE!!! Just like the whole "high-strength aluminum tubes from Africa" story was a farce made up by the administration to strike fear into the US public to get support for what the President wanted to do anyway.

To all those who feel that Bush is some shining knight in armor who can do nothing wrong - Great, I'm happy you have somebody to look up to... you have chosen a loser who has consistently failed, cost investors millions, lied to the press and public, and run businesses into the ground, only to have someone step in and bail him out as the ship was going down time and time again. Thank heavens for family and wealthy friends, eh? And all that was BEFORE he became POTUS.
Gee, sounds like our prescription drug situation, gas prices, and the National debt story... all over again.
Well, if nothing else, this guy is consistent.

But back to my main point, y'all do the rest of us US citizens a favor, STOP trying to group us all into a big "ANYTHING BUT BUSH" group that you credit as being all left-wing, anti-war extremists. I doubt seriously if more than half of the people in this country are "liberal exteremists". (And YES, over half of the votes that were cast in 2000 were for a Dem, not Bush.) so lighten up - not favoring Bush and his administration does not mean you are a Saddam-lover who thinks he did no wrong.

Damn, the right to have an opinion and to speak about it is the first and greatest principle of being American - yet some beleive it's either Bush's way or the wrong way.
Get over it.

 

Proud Pony,

You know you and I think alike in car terms and music appreciation......BUT I gotta' ask you to SHOW some proof of the lie that the Democrats love to chant about being lied to.....

Not ONE frickin' person that I've pointed these links to (and I've had numerous debates on appropriate forums...this ain't it) has been able to refute these reports.....99% of the people who repeat the Democrat lie about being lied to even can find it in themselves to respond.....well one idiot tried to blow them off because they were written by non-US sources..heaven forbid we should listen to peole who were there or actually live over there.

You do realize Russia just had elections don't you? Consider that along with the first link and my comments about Bush covering for Putin....there is a huge movement in Russia to return to Communism...that would be much larger than a few terrorists......remember, it's a BIG world out there...

EVERY Intelligence agency on the planet....and previous Democrat and Republican US administrations ALL said Saddam had WMD's..........ALL of them.....

So.....do you think Saddam was smart/dumb enough to bluff the entire world?

Do you honestly believe the two guys who failed at thier jobs and tried to smear the US to cover their own @$$es by saying they couldn't find anything?? BTW, Kay didn't say he couldn't find anything...his actual report detailed finding WMD programs in progress.....but Dan Rather never said that, so it must not be true, huh?

Hell, even Saddam admitted to having them....claims he destroyed them, but don't tell me you actually believed him....

I'm PO'd about the Medicare bill costing more than promised......I'm not happy about the encroaching religeous influence in our government......I'm not happy about the secrecy surrounding the formation of the energy bill.....

Having said that, I still will not vote for Kerry due to the simple facts that he spit in the face of many Vietnam vets by his actions after he returned from shooting a vietcong in the back and getting a medal for it.....but accused his fellow troops of being baby killing murderers..but political assasination was discussed at one of the metings he attended..a real gem he is...

I also will not vote for someone who will subjegate the US to the whim of the Europeans and their drive for world domination using world courts.....he'd sell us out in a heartbeat. Or maybe one of his rich wives can bail us out....

But this Iraqi issue and the constant uninformed blathering by blind Bush Bashers P*SSES me off

READ for yourselves!

Now, before this forum degrades into a version of LS1.com's AAG....can we PLEASE get back to talking about cars???

 

Apparently... HE DID JUST THAT!!!

Look Doug, I am NOT IN ANY WAY trying to say Kerry is our nation's salvation. Please point me to any sentence in which I have outwardly endorced Kerry in this thread. You are bordering on EXACTLY the type of assertion I was writing about in my previous post - just because I said I didn't like Bush, you reply to my post with a Kerry-bashing - which tells me you think I'm a pro-Kerry guy. Fact is, I have my issues with him too. As usual, we are going to be left having two choices, Little and None. IMO, everyone in Washington is bought-out and has a private agenda. My job is to select the stool pigeon who's agenda will (incidentally in most cases) help the causes I feel are important. Therefore, I will wait til November, then I will choose the one I think is going to serve MY NEEDS the best.
Voila - Democracy at it's purest.

Allow me to address the other main issue of your previous post before I close. You question the issue of "Lies". OK, let me back-off a little and not call them lies - let me call it misleading or intentionally misguided or deceived... does any of these sound better? To me, just a good ol' southern country boy, a lie is a lie - it means "anything other than the real, whole truth".

Medicare Reform Act - %73 of the burden to be paid by the government (i.e. TAXPAYERS) but NO mandatory cost reductions or regulations on the costs of the medicines?!?! WTF? Who are we kidding here? ONLY the senior citizens who are already broke will benefit... the rest of us will pay for their medicine AND ours, and we will pay exhorbitant prices for it to boot. What a sweet deal for those who own (or sit on the B.O.D.) of these huge pharmaceutical companies, eh?

Taxcuts - lemme see... 3% of a household income of $30,000 is what $900 (and I'm giving the benefit of doubt at 3%), but 3% of $36,000,000 is a tidy $1,080,000. Hmmm, the wealthy get back $1million, and the poverty-striken get back $900 - sounds good to me! Especially since both the wealthy and the poverished pay THE SAME PRICES for everyday needs like medicine, gas, heating fuel, and the like.

National Debt - don't even get me started. Bush = spend, period. There are no variables in that equation. Just try to defend the largest 4-year spending spree in history - good luck. Before you start, be advised that even our operations in two major theaters of WW-II did not do the level of damage that this "War on Terrorism" has done.

Maybe at face value, the administration hasn't "lied" to us, but what do you call it when they inflate figures, insinuate "alloy tubes" are intended for nuke programs, and the like?
Get this straight, it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to be sure the data they report to us is VALID - ESPECIALLY when they are trying to justify a hostile raid on another nation based on this data.

But nevermind the "big stuff" like the intelligence...

*What is your take on the issues with Halliburton? Unbid contracts? $millions in corruption already? Milking $60million or more from taxpayers on prices and transport fees of gas into Iraq FOR THE PUBLIC - not military use? Cheney's anonymous annual deposits from Halliburton into a "holding account"? Crimony.

*What is your take on the appointment (by Bush's Admin) of Karzai as President Interim of Afghanistan? You DO KNOW Karzai is a former oil company exec, right? And now the pipeline from Tajikistan is rolling right across Afghanistan to the gulf for waiting tankers... what a great coincidence!

*What is your position regarding the Carlysle group? No issues with insider trading I suppose? As long as our military has choppers, guns and rockets, nevermind who makes $millions on them or the ethics behind it, right?

*What concerns have you that the #1 contributor to Bush's campaign is also the #1 criminal in the Enron scandal? How cool is it that Ken Lay has not YET even been charged, despite the testimony of many, yet he was ousted in 2001. Yet Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Schwartz of Tyco International were charged within a week of alleged corporate fraud in 2003, and are already at trial. Guess Kozlowski should have given some of his stolen millions to Bush's campaign, then maybe he would be left alone like Ken Lay, huh?

You see, I could go on and on with these FACTS that show that our current administration is fleecing us. But I don't see the point. As someone else said earlier - people believe what they choose to believe, and I doubt that anything we write in this thread will change anyone else's mind. (But putting it out there ain't gonna hurt either.)

On a side note, the one thing I have found most interesting, is that nobody challenged me on my point about Bush giving complete immunity from all investigations and prosecution to all people and organizations doing business in Iraq paid for by the Iraqi Rebuild Fund. When I heard that for the first time, I actually laughed at the guy who told me, and accused him of being a whack-job. Then I looked it up myself, and he was right. I have conceeded to him that he was indeed right, and I will doubt him no more. It doesn't sound like such a big deal at all, until you think about what kind of opportunities that opens up for shady goings-on and corrupt deals could be done and NOBODY could be held accountable BY LAW. Nice gig when you have all your Dad's and Friend's companies in there doing the work for us on unbidded contracts.
Yeah, no lies. OK. If you say so.

I respect you a lot Doug. I know you are a decent guy and I too enjoy your opinions re: cars, life, and things in general - whether we agree or not. We probably have different economic situations, ages, family situations, investment strategies, and political backgrounds - all of which is OK because we aren't twins living next door to each other. So we look at things differently, and I have no beef with your siding for Bush - it's your perrogative and as an American it's your right. Likewise, I don't care for his "work" thus far, and that's my right and my opinion.
I think no less of you as an individual because I don't agree with your political POV, and hope you feel the same way.

 

Along the lines of this "opinion" thing....
You DO realize that you don't have to come into this thread, right?
And even if you do come into the thread, you don't have to read it, right?
And even if you do read it, you don't have to post, right?

You are in complete control of whether or not we talk cars, or politics.
Think about it.

 

Proud Pony....please go re-read my first line in my post. You will note that I said I only read thru the first page (you had not posted on the first page) before I posted.

--thus, I was not aware of anything you posted on this thread.

You certainly have the right to feel however it is you feel.

But I would also point out that this government is not run by the president. (yes, I know you know that...)

I think it's high time that our congress and our senate stop playing the "blame game"...and get on to business. I also think most of them should be voted out of office in the next couple of elections......it is criminal the 'pork' that gets thru legislation......further, most of them are not someone I would want to look up to.

I don't agree with a lot of what Georger Bush does or thinks...but I have a REAL problem with Mr. Kerry (and Mr. Kennedy..who, by the way, should retire somewhere and leave us all alone) throwing stones........Mr. Kerry's voting record is abysmal at best.

Now...I'm with Doug....let's get back to cars...........this thread should really be in the lounge...not the 5th gen section.

 

Doug, Red, I'm with you guys on this one. Oh, Camaro's Rule so I'm gonna get back to em'!

 

Read your first line...
Hope you read mine too.
Again, I wasn't singling you out in my post either.

And FWIW, I agree with most of what you point out too!
Especially the other two branches of government.
Congress can vote themselves a pay increase while we are going broke as a nation?!?! WTF? I wish I could do that!

We're really not so far different if we'd take the time to look deeper, and not rush to judgement on topics at face value.

Ok - back to cars.
It would help if there were something interesting in the car world to talk about...

 

I think it's funny how people always say "I was lied to."

Do you not realize how many years Saddam continued to ignore the UN resolutions that were set forth to allow unobstructed inspections in Iraq? It was high time someone grew some ***** and decided to enforce them. A nice fringe benefit was ousting Saddam at the same time...

 

I hope this thread is not a sign of things to come in the 5th Gen/Future forum. This thread is really Lounge material...

This forum is for debating important stuff, like which engine will go in the 5th Gen, or the styling of the new STS.

 

Things are always clearer in retrospect. But simply looking at it from a law enforcement standpoint, Waco dragged on for what, nearly 2 months? The Waco compound was heavily armed full of faithful followers.

Ruby Ridge, though more of an overraction by all sides, still isn't exactly a great example. In short (the part that isn't debated by either side) is that US Marshals went onto their wooded property looking for the guy. The dog they had started barking, and the guy's 2 kids grabbed rifles thinking there was an animal in the woods. The marshalls shot the dog (it wasn't exactly a nice friendly French Poodle either), the family (not knowing who shot the dog) shot at the marshalls, one of the kids and one of the marshalls soon got killed.

Where the FBI screwed up is that when they got on the scene, the local agent in charge (not trying to find out what started this) gave shoot to kill orders which was completely wrong.

As for the Gonzales incident in Miami, that was 110% on the family. That unbalenced (if not completely idiotic) camera hound of a cousin, Mariselas (if I spelled her name right) said to the TV cameras and reporters (and was backed up by hey equally stupid uncle the following day) that the family wasn't just keeping cameras in the house.

In hindsight, Ruby Ridge was the stupidity of the local FBI commander and the triggerhappy Weavers. Waco it was a violent cult, that had over a month and a half to end the standoff peacefully, and in Miami the Gonzales was a bunch of no-lifes that suddenly ended up thrust in front of cameras, had money and gifts pouring in, and world attention. They attempted to prolong that by making a specticle of that poor kid around, and in the very end, attempeted to divide that kid from his dad by (and I'm not making this up) accusing him of sexually abusing the kid.

I just feel if we are going to talk about government and property issues, there are scores of farmers who had their land forclosed, or can't use their land because some endangered species was discovered in a nearby creek, or the people who had their property condemned because the government wanted their house and/or property and didn't want to pay fair market value for it.


BTW: Trivia question for all:
There is only one government agency that needs no court order to come onto your property since it has standardized legal permission to do so. This one agency has the right to conduct a search of this property without a warrant, and is empowered to seize this property without due process in the event there is any descrepency whatsoever, and you have to go to court to get it back. Oh, and yes, it is also pretty well armed & has the power to arrest those within or on this property in the event of illegal activity.

At various times, it can work with other government law enforcement on a local, state, and federal level.

I want to see how long it takes someone to get this.

(B4C is right, this has turned into lounge material. On the good side, we have level headed adults talking about this here. Can't say that if this was in the lounge. )

 

There's two, CIA and FBI.

Here's an interesting article:
Police State

Insight Magazine 11/09/01: Kelly Patricia O’Meara

If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill — a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it — and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.

What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peek" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine.

Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept. 3), has a pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. "I don't like the sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen."

The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination."

Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peek provision is just one that will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking about the sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other places. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous problems with due process. By not notifying someone about a search, they don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search."

Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

 

(Continued)

Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support."

Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There is no connection," insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this legislation. Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes but to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the 1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution."

"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the 'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under the new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most people think of as terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to slide down the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British Parliament, investigators can get information from Internet-service providers about their subscribers without a warrant. Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to minor crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal spying. The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:


- minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

- expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

- gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.

- grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

- leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.


More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.

According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans — something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s."

Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old same old. "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one."

Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of liberty."

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression."