Talk:Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Naturalization#Denaturalization|citizenship revoked]] The anchor (#Denaturalization) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

Articles for an international encyclopedia should not assume that the USA is the only country.

It doesn't. Hence the "The draft version of the bill would expand the powers of the United States government..."

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act is one scary piece of legislation. Interestingly enough, the current administration isn't trying to pass it -- yet.

It has been suggested by some that this is an over-the-top bargainaing strategy in the spirit of the maxim "if you want a kitten, ask for a pony." In other words, it is designed to be sacrificed to gain a different (and less frightening) goal of the Bush Administration.

Unfortunately, there is always the possiblity that this beast will get passed. Aslo unfortunately, most people will simply ignore the problem and gripe to their friends. Please write your congressperson!

If we were not able to before, we can now kiss the Fourth Amendment goodbye. Does anyone want to re-evaluate including George W. Bush on the list of dictators? --Daniel C. Boyer

While I find the entire act scary, I tend to think that wikipedia-articles isn't the right place for political activism. The entire article reeks of being written by someone opposing the act.

This might well be true, but I would prefer, and think that others deserve, a list or precis of POV problems with the article rather than this general statement, so that someone can make whatever revisions are called for. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Also, the entire article is written such that you have to be a USian or know the US very well to get anything useful out of it. Maybe one of the most US-centric and non-useful articles for people that don't know the US I've ever seen on wikipedia. :)

I don't see the slant: everything stated in there is factually and objectively true. I don't think it is at all polemic, and actually is rather restrained. If you are concerned with some specific section, please point it out and I will be happy to have a look, or just go ahead and edit it. As for US-centrism, again, I don't see it, but maybe that's just because I'm from the US. :) The article is about a proposed US law, so it is by definition going to have to do with institutions of the USA. I thought I'd made everything pretty self explanatory (i.e. one could probably guess what the Department of Justice does even if one does not already know, and it's linked just in case), but again, if there is anything specific you feel could use some clarification, let me know here, or just edit it... -kwertii

The only problems I see are a couple of weasel or weasel-like situations (e.g., "It has also been suggested that, had the text of the bill not been leaked, the administration would have delayed its deployment to co-incide with a future terrorist attack in an attempt to secure a wider basis for approval of its measures."). blahpers 16:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

With the advent of the 110th US Congress...

I highly doubt this'll pass. 1ne 05:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116033319/http://w2.eff.org:80/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php to http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]