![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Really it's a bit much to claim the police were responsible for assassintations and not provide a source for the claim. "Citation needed" indeed. Perhaps this claim should be deleted until someone can substantiate it. 2601:7:E80:7ED:55EF:7519:37A7:DE3D ( talk) 21:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The article contained mention of a case before the 7th Cr. Court in Jan 2001. The article claimed that the court ruled in favor of allowing police to investigate people who have not committed a crime. The only case reviewed by that court on that month that has anything to do with this is an appeal by the City of Chicago. The police video-taped demonstrators during the DNC. The demonstrators sued the city (and won) for being video-taped. The appeals court overturned the lower court's verdict, claiming that the police had the right to video-tape people in a public location. I feel that it is rather a stretch to claim that this ruling means that police can investigate people who have not committed a crime. Kainaw 19:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The USA PATRIOT ACT is an extension of the USA ACT, which is an extension of FISA which effectively made Red Squads illegal. It is simply confusing to claim that the USA PATRIOT ACT is legalizing Red Squads when it is an extension of the act that made them illegal. So, I removed the mention of the USA PATRIOT ACT until this logical leap of faith can be better explained. Kainaw 19:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel the paragraph:
is an orphan fact and probably deserves a separate section or perhaps is even a separate stub article. However, what is the best name for such a stub article? Red squad (New Zealand Police)? -- Cameron Dewe 03:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)