Another "Mistake"??...after the Mistake of shipping the missile fuses to Taiwan....
You decide.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Main controvertial aspects of the act
Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.[216][217][218][219] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". [220] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[132] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.[221][222][223]
Another provision of the Patriot Act brought a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".[56] Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by third-parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the provision.[224] As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.[225] However, despite protestations to the contrary, the American Library Association strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different to ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a chilling effect on free speech. The association became so concerned that they formed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.[226] They urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long as was legally needed.[227] Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders.[228][229][230] This stance was criticised by Heather Mac Donald, who opined that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[231]
Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.[115] Before the Patriot Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the Patriot Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[232] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".[233] The University of California passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,[234] while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."[235]
Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is its affect on the privacy of British Columbian citizens. British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA Patriot Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of British Columbia has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the wide-spread powers of the USA Patriot Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada.[236] B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences of the USA Patriot Act, “once information is sent across borders, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to control”.[237]
Read what Amnesty has to say on this : http://www.amnestyusa.org/War-on-Terror/Civil-Rights/page.do?id=1108209&n1=3&n2=821&n3=838
Another provision of the Patriot Act brought a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".[56] Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by third-parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the provision.[224] As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.[225] However, despite protestations to the contrary, the American Library Association strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different to ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a chilling effect on free speech. The association became so concerned that they formed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.[226] They urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long as was legally needed.[227] Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders.[228][229][230] This stance was criticised by Heather Mac Donald, who opined that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[231]
Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.[115] Before the Patriot Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the Patriot Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[232] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".[233] The University of California passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,[234] while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."[235]
Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is its affect on the privacy of British Columbian citizens. British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA Patriot Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of British Columbia has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the wide-spread powers of the USA Patriot Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada.[236] B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences of the USA Patriot Act, “once information is sent across borders, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to control”.[237]
Read what Amnesty has to say on this : http://www.amnestyusa.org/War-on-Terror/Civil-Rights/page.do?id=1108209&n1=3&n2=821&n3=838
USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot" Act, is an Act of Congress that United States President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The acronym stands for " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).
The Act expanded the authority of US law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act expanded the authority of US law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution.[citation needed] Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Mistake ???
Check this News Article.....can you Believe a "Mistake" of this magnitude?
And we say we are having Regulated Trade?...what happened to all those clearances, Scans, Security documents, checkposts ..etc.???
And we say we are having Regulated Trade?...what happened to all those clearances, Scans, Security documents, checkposts ..etc.???
Conspiracy Theories
This is a list of conspiracy theories; theories involving conspiracies, which are not recognized as true by most mainstream sources.
A conspiracy is defined by law as an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.[1] While in the strictest sense a "conspiracy theory" is a theory about a conspiracy, the term usually refers to a theory that attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations.
This list of conspiracy theories is a list of some of the most prevalent conspiracy theories which have not been recognized as true by most mainstream academics. In some cases, rebuttals have been offered to counter the theories; in other cases the theories have merely been summarily dismissed.
A conspiracy is defined by law as an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.[1] While in the strictest sense a "conspiracy theory" is a theory about a conspiracy, the term usually refers to a theory that attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations.
This list of conspiracy theories is a list of some of the most prevalent conspiracy theories which have not been recognized as true by most mainstream academics. In some cases, rebuttals have been offered to counter the theories; in other cases the theories have merely been summarily dismissed.
Kyoto Protocol and India
India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world. Following the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time. However, the U.S. and other Western nations assert that India, along with China, will account for most of the emissions in the coming decades, owing to their rapid industrialization and economic growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)