4th amendment gutted

wow! a post by "judi" that actually had something truthful and valid in it...

what this bill means for anti-corporate globalization activists remains to be seen, but what's obvious is that the gov't is going to be able to use this legislation as justification for cracking down on dissent against its policies ...

look what happened to connor cash in long island, charged with "providing material support to terrorists" [ http://www.indybay.org/display.php?id=105359 ] for actions related to property destruction claimed by the ELF late last year. because the language is so vague in the bill, it can be used as a catch-all to charge almost anyone with "providing material support to terrorists" ... perhaps next time people are Reclaiming the Streets they'll be arrested for it...

anyway, here's the CNN article from today...

Bush signs anti-terrorism bill
October 26, 2001 Posted: 1:28 p.m. EDT
(CNN) -- President Bush granted federal authorities expanded surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers Friday, signing a broad anti-terrorism bill into law at a White House ceremony.

The measure allows authorities to use more overseas intelligence information, allows for longer detentions of suspects who are not U.S. citizens and expands wiretapping authority. It was crafted in the wake of last month's terrorist attacks and passed both houses of Congress overwhelmingly Thursday.

full story at:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/26/gen.attack.on.terror/index.html

Your continual refusal to cite references in your spam-like "reports" only reduces the value of this newswire. That you've learned to post opinions which are more palettable to the general community here, is only a sad ploy to garner social acceptance.

WTF doesn't the SF IMC staff care enough about their newswire to keep it clean?

On the other hand, we have to recognize that this is somebody who is posting things as "factual" and neglecting to cite authoritative sources! This isn't a free speech issue, but an ethical one! We all want the SF IMC to be as reliable as possible - something that can't happen if people can't offer proof for their factual assertions.

Keep the "free speech / censorship" debate within the realm of opinions - not objective material.

Hey "anti-Judi" - Are you suggesting that one must publish a "source" for something that is well known, well documented, and on all the wires as contemporary news? Are you questioning that Bush indeed signed the bill today, and that it will "legalize" all that Judi claims? Sounds to me like you're running some kind of interference for those in power, or operating under some similarly questionable motive. Are you a "superpatriot", an agent provocateur, or merely an anal-retentive apologist?