Talk:Red Squad

message: 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)
thread_title: Assassination?

message: 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)
thread_title: Jan 2001 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

message: 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)
thread_title: USA PATRIOT ACT

message: I feel the paragraph:
:During the 1981 Springbok Tour in New Zealand, riot police were formed into Red and Blue Squads to control protesters opposed to the tour.
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)
replies: text: Added an accompanying fact and an intro for the subsection.  With just two facts, it doesn't warrant an article of its own (in my opinion). --Kainaw (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed? 

message: : "Red Squads are police intelligence units that specialize in infiltrating, harassing, and gathering intelligence on political and social groups" and "The aftermath of the riots during Johnson's administration and Watergate during Nixon's administration led to public criticism of the Red Squads for illegal and harassing tactics. " these statements clearly show a POV using words like "harrassing" and "illeagal". The author does not jsutify the statements or cite specific references as justification.EMT1871 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the use of 'harrassing' in the first example can be replaced with 'conducting counter-measures.' However, in the second sentence, the use of the same word seems to tie from a charge of harrassment, rather than an attempt to categorize such actions. In that case, I think it stands on its own as an allegation. I'll make the change to the first sentence. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV