Subject:
|
Re: A lttile tiny cheer...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:11:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> for a little tiny victory.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20040127/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act
Eek. It's a disturbing thought that you could be arrested, tried, and convicted
for expertly advising a terrorist organization to surrender, negotiate, or
disband. I would _hope_ that wasn't the intent of the loose wording, but given
the level of negative sentiment towards terrorism when the Patriot Act was
passed, I fully expect that it was intended to prevent any sort of humanitarian
aid from being given to injured people who were deemed terrorists. One question
I have on this is who decides which groups are terrorist organizations? Could
someone like Gandhi have been banned from receiving expert advice if his local
government branded him a terrorist?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A lttile tiny cheer...
|
| (...) Here's something, I've noticed that on this NG that most 'intellectual debaters' are not for the Patriot Act due to the limits on freedom and stomping on the Bill o' Rights... Yet another NG (remain nameless), the Patriot Act is seen as some (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
