Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site 1209
phr1 writes "According to the Washington Post, the ACLU was forced to remove a paragraph from their online press release, that specified what kind of information FBI agents could request under the Patriot Act that the ACLU has been suing over. "
Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
FFS, if you do have such a page, host it in the U.S.A. Don't run off to India with your tail between your legs. Chrissake, take over a government website and host it there, then print out a copy, walk up Capitol Hill and tape it to the wall.
Re:Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Sami Al-Hussayen is being tried under the Patriot Act right now for giving "aid and comfort" to "designated terrorist groups." [kbcitv.com]
Al-Hussayen's "crime" was to set up a web site for groups the government claims support terrorism [findlaw.com], and acting as few as sixteen times as a "moderator" in a discussion forum on that web site.
Ironically, Sami Al-Hussayen came to america to avoid arrest in Egypt for condemning Islamic violence.
Basically, Al-Hussayen's crime was to be associated with a web site that praised suicide bombing in Chechnia and Israel.
Now, I'm against terrorism in Israel (and also against the hard-line Likud land grabs, for that matter), but I'm not convinced the Chechens are not freedom fighters in their fight against the Russians as much as were the Afghans who fought the Soviet invasion in 1979.
Does that mean that if I set up a web site calling for support of Chechen independence, I'd go to prison? Apparently so. What happened to the right to hold an opinion and freely speak it?
Yes, today in the country that calls itself the "Land of the Free", where George Bush claims our enemies "hate us for our freedoms", you can go to Federal Prison for helping to set up a web site that the government later decides to outlaw.
This is liberty?
Re:Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Overseas Indian Mirror anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Questions:
1. What is a large sum?
2. Are these groups based on location or on affiliates as listed by the State Department Terrorist list?
3. Is this consistant with his past behavior?
4. How did he amass a "large sum?"
I haven't read anything about the case to be honest, but it's best to question when you see discremancies like this.
Pan
So (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... sorry, read that as Cthulhu..
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraq? Isreal? Vietnam? Korea? (Score:4, Interesting)
And yes, your right, it would screw the pooch for the whole country. As I like to say "I used to be an Anarchist till I realized how much I like my indoor plumbing." But like a nuke, some weapons are better used as a deterrant than on your enemies - Thus the importance of an armed populace. Mind you I don't want a gun in my house. But I want to right to obtain one if I feel it necessary.
Re:So (Score:4, Interesting)
Then apparently you haven't put much thought into it.
When someone attempts to subvert your other rights like, for example, your right to vote. What makes you think that these same people won't try to subvert your right to free speech?
It's your right to keep and bear arms that protects those other rights. Some people say "That'll never happen in America. Well, the truth is that it has. [jpfo.org]
The Battle Of Athens [constitution.org] is a great example of how corruption in the goverment can be stopped by an armed populace.
LK
Big black lines (Score:3, Funny)
Hang on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or am I expecting too much of the US government...
Re:Hang on... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or am I expecting too much of the US government...
You're expecting too much of the highly secretive Bush Administration.
Unless photos come out, don't expect them to tell you about it.
This is the Bush Administration has gone to the Supreme Court to protect its "right" to keep secret its consultation Oil Industry executives on legislation affecting the Oil Industry [cnn.com].
This is the Bush Administration that still won't say how mnay "detainees" are held at Guantanamo, or under what conditions those detainees are being held.
Re:Hang on... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Canadian, I'm sorry to say that our greatest friend and ally is responsible for the greatest human rights abuses occuring in Cuba at this time.
Fortunately I have great faith in individual American citizens...but frankly your government blow...and sucks at the same time.
Re:Hang on... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not entirely true. A number of the pictures show prisoners that have been severely beaten. One picture showed a prisoner that had been stuffed in a body bag packed with ice; the photo showed the man after he died.
Three prisoners in Afghanistan have been killed during interogation (the investigations are ongoing after 18 months), two at Army bases and a third at a CIA facility on the Pakistan border. There are also at least 25 cases of Iraqi prisoners dying in US custody, 13 of them under suspicious circumstances.
On Meet the Press [msn.com], Republican senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, "This is not just about humiliation, Tim. The allegations in this report involve rape and murder. Please, don't leave this whole scenario thinking that this is just about a humiliating experience. This is about system failure. This is about felony offenses."
Granted, the abuses in the US run Iraqi prisons do not match those under Saddam. They are worse, however, than most Middle Eastern countries.
18 USC 2703 (2) (Score:5, Informative)
(A)
name;
(B)
address;
(C)
local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D)
length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E)
telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F)
means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3)
A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
Re:Hang on... (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Justice Dept. Cited Secrecy Rules
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A27
When a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the American Civil Liberties Union could finally reveal the existence of a lawsuit challenging the USA Patriot Act, the group issued a news release.
But the next day, according to new documents released yesterday, the ACLU was forced to remove two paragraphs from the release posted on its Web site, after the Justice Department complained that the group had violated court secrecy rules.
One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release.
The dispute set off a furious round of court filings in a case that serves as both a challenge to, and an illustration of, the far-reaching power of the Patriot Act. Approved by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law gives the government greater latitude and secrecy in counterterrorism investigations and includes a provision allowing the FBI to secretly demand customer records from Internet providers and other businesses without a court order.
The ACLU first filed its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such demands, known as national security letters, on April 6, but the secrecy rules of the Patriot Act required the challenge to be filed under seal. A ruling April 28 allowed the release of a heavily censored version of the complaint, but the ACLU is still forbidden from revealing many details of the case, including the identity of another plaintiff who has joined in the lawsuit. The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one.
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said the court order also means that she "cannot confirm or deny" whether the ACLU is representing the second plaintiff. The group is the only counsel listed in court documents.
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Justice lawyers said that both paragraphs violated a secrecy order and that the ACLU should be required to seek an exemption to publicize the information, court records show. Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment yesterday.
"It simply never occurred to us that this information would be covered by the sealing order, because it's completely non-sensitive, generic information," Beeson said.
The dispute was partly resolved yesterday. Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent.
=-=-=-=-=-=
my god. WTF is wrong with the government of this country?
Funny Stuff: It's all in the Wa Post story... (Score:5, Informative)
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Re:RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ACLU first filed its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such demands, known as national security letters, on April 6, but the secrecy rules of the Patriot Act required the challenge to be filed under seal. A ruling April 28 allowed the release of a heavily censored version of the complaint, but the ACLU is still forbidden from revealing many details of the case, including the identity of another plaintiff who has joined in the lawsuit. The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one.
So, this law is so secret that even challenging it must be done in secret, and if the law exercised against you, that must also be kept secret.
Phew. And here I thought the War on Terror might cause us to compromise the principles we're fighting to defend.
A forthcoming addendum:
"..with liberty and justice for all who having nothing to hide, and so, nothing to fear."
Re:RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Joseph K. called. He wants to know if you know anything about his trial.
Re:RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we safe yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe.
Re:Are we safe yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
How long did it take before we saw them copying DMCA-like regulations (like the tax on recordables. Both CD and DVD. We actually have to pay the music industry each time we backup our own files.)or the IP-madness?
Do I dare to ask what's next?
Re:Are we safe yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gimme a break. This isn't a taintable statement. It doesn't use language that can be construed to have have bias. It's about as objective a paragraph
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Put your money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never done something like this before. I rarely write letters to politicians, and I don't make donations to political parties. But as I get older I realize that if I don't start putting my money where my mouth is, I may not be heard.
Take back your country.
Re:Put your money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Put your money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Put your money where your mouth is (Score:4, Insightful)
1) So how much did you contribute to the ACLU last year? If it is as much or more than I contributed, we'll continue this discussion.
Ad hominem fallacy. Someone else's contribution to the ACLU--or yours, for that matter--has no bearing on this discussion. If you don't like that the ACLU is defending others' freedom of expression, due process, etc., stop defending them and get on-board an organization like the ACLJ instead.
You have to wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were in that situation, I'd go after the ACLU. How better to get the law repealed, while keeping your job?
Or they could be evil bastards. Either one.
Call a lawyer.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how can it be illegal to disclose the types of things that may be requested under the law? We can't be subjecting people to laws they are not even allowed to know about now can we? This sounds more like the behavior of a certain former leader the US just ejected from Iraq. Say it ain't so.
Re:Call a lawyer.... (Score:5, Informative)
I've been voting Libertarian every election since Reagan, and it's not working.
Giggle... (Score:5, Informative)
And three paragraphs up...
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Nice one, Washington Post!
Send the document to the memory hole (Score:5, Interesting)
someone should get it over to them ASAP, before it disappears.
This is all very distressing. These fascists must be stopped. I wonder when they'll have our Kristalnacht or when will these neocons burn down the Capitol Building. These are dark days we are living in.
RS
Story already out of date!?! (Score:5, Informative)
"The ACLU has led opposition to controversial portions of the Patriot Act, filing a challenge to Section 215, another provision that allows the FBI to gain access to sensitive records, and filing briefs before the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oppose expanded wiretaps. With support from a broad right-left coalition, the ACLU has also encouraged passage of approximately 300 local resolutions against anti-civil liberties portions of the law, and has urged Congress to leave in place the "sunsets" for Patriot Act provisions set to expire in 2005."
"The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule in the case. The ACLU will file a summary judgment motion on May 17, 2004; the government will respond on June 7, 2004; all briefing will be completed in July 2004. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the case in late summer 2004. The case is assigned to Judge Victor Marrero."
But wait! I went to the ACLU's actual page and found the same text. Cruising through the most recent press releases turned up a new release [aclu.org] that tells the story. Long story short, this story's already out of date (the info has been reinstated)! That doesn't mean that the government didn't fuck up, just that at least one judge hasn't lost his/her mind.
preserving our freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Dejavu? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does any and all of this remind of you of Mcarthyism? Where McCarthy sent his FBI drones out after anybody who mentioned anything liberal or against "his" representation of U.S. policies?
Remember how anyone who spoke out against the USA was labelled a communist and harrassed by the FBI?
Now when you are not a huge advocate of US policies and speak out...you aren't labeled a communist...you are labeled a terrorist.
Interesting how history repeats itself. Bush=Ashcroft=McCarthy.The Irony ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love the law of unintended consequences
Never Been So Ashamed (Score:5, Insightful)
litmus test (Score:4, Interesting)
With the increase of destructiveness available to sociopaths, any society must abrogate some rights of its citizens. E.g., nobody much minds that we may no longer carry box-cutters onto jetliners.
But, what's the non-partisan litmus test that tells me whether some new abrogation is a net win/necesssity, or instead embodies the authoritarian ill intent of the evil bureaucrat? (...already assuming those are mutually exclusive...)
Re:litmus test (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yeah, equating box-cutters and speach makes a lot of sense. As if some terrorist were going to take over a newspaper by threatening the editorial staff with a vicious tongue lashing and fly the Op-Ed section into a nuclear reactor!
The current administration, and their cowardly lackies, would like you to believe that security can be bought by the sacrifice of civil liberties. Unfortunately (for their argument, at least) there is no proof that this is true. Most civil liberties (gun ownership included) don't materially enhance the ability of a dedicated sociopath to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The loss of civil liberties, however, greatly reduces the ability of the citizenry to resist corrupt and despotic governments, or even to be aware of the corruption and despotism.
moviepig continues:
First, most bureacrats (also known as civil-servants, which are non-partisan positions to begin with) are not evil, they are simply lazy and rude. They've got no great desire to do you harm, but also very little desire to help you out.
Second, given the current domination of all three branches of government (as well as the media) by one party, and given that their agenda is obviously malign to most of the citizenry, any litmus test that identifies the current administration's policy objectives as anything other than pure and good is bound to be labeled a partisan agenda.
sweet Jesus (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad the mass public doesn't know that these kind of government antics are going on right underneath their noses.
You yankees should worry. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you choose between bad and worse? Do you people feel that its your own people who become presidents or are they choosen beforehand and you just choose between the few "approved" candidates?
Once slipped the rights of the people is utterly hard to recover and sometimes as history has shown us impossible.
Dont you wonder what the founding fathers would think if they saw america of today?
This just plain SUCKS (Score:3, Funny)
Man, I can't even finish the joke, because it would be:
(A)Too Ironic.
(B)Liable to get me a ticket to Gitmo.
(C)Foolish to criticize the government without using 50 anonymous proxy servers.
(D)Too Ironic.
The only way... (Score:4, Interesting)
their secrecy. We need to create a movement
where *all* candidates take a stand on one
simple issue: will they allow all their public
dealings to be recorded and put in the public
domain.
Those that have something to hide or an agenda
to keep hidden (which is probably 99% of them)
will say something about security. The only
need for secrecy resides in a very few elements
of military decision making. All other policy
decisions, especially those that go before
congress, must be compeletely on the record.
The fuckers are supposed to be "public servants",
so let's make them be just that. Servants don't
have privacy. If they really want to serve us,
then they don't want to hide anything, right?!
The only time they are not on record is when
they are in rooms with their spouse that have
no communication devices.
Simple. This will be the only way to draw a
line between the persons who seek to serve the
community and those who are seeking to serve
themselves.
I'm sick of this shit.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
What are you doing about it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right-wing fanatic here... (Score:4, Interesting)
But...
Damn me if they're not on the right side in this one.
Re:Right-wing fanatic here... (Score:5, Informative)
That's really a narrow minded, uninformed perspective you have there, no doubt propagated by the media. It's as accurate a characterization of the ACLU as the myth that Al Gore Invented the Internet or the woman who sued McDonalds for spilling coffee was frivolous. If you do the research you find the media spins these things wildly out of control, or else finds the most atypical fringe examples and amplifies them as if they're locoust-sized plagues about to decend upon all mankind.
Here's a classic example of how left-wing the ACLU is:
It's funny how right-wing pundits will harp for hours about three hippies chaining themselves to a tree for hours, and conveniently ignore the arrest of several hundred people who gathered in a park in Washington D.C. to protest the war.
The ACLU has done much to help all different groups regardless of political ideology. Here's just a sample:
Reno v. ACLU
The Court struck down Congress' Communications Decency Act, which was an attempt to censor the Internet by banning "indecent" speech, ruling that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
Board of Commissioners v. Umbehr
Government contractors cannot be subjected to reprisals, such as the loss of a contract, for expressing their political views.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
A state prohibition against the anonymous distribution of political campaign literature violated the right to anonymous free speech.
Lebron v. Amtrak
An artist argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message. The Court extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government.
Ladue v. Gilleo
A Missouri town's ordinance that barred a homeowner from posting a sign in her bedroom window that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf - Call Congress Now!" was deemed to violate the First Amendment.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
A city's ban on the ritual slaughter of animals as practiced by the Santeria religion was overturned as a violation of religious liberty since the city did permit such secular activities as hunting and fishing.
Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health
In the Court's first right-to-die case, the ACLU represented the family of a woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than seven years. Although the Court did not go as far as the ACLU urged, it did recognize living wills as clear and convincing evidence of a patient's wishes.
Grutter v. Bollinger/Gratz v. Bollinger
Providing a strong endorsement of affirmative action in higher education, the Court held that public universities have a compelling interest in creating a diverse student body and that race may be treated as a "plus" factor in the admissions process.
Lawrence v. Texas
The Court struck down a Texas sodomy statute that criminalized private acts of sexual intimacy between same-sex couples, expanding the privacy rights of all Americans and promoting the right of lesbians and gay men to equal treatment under the law.
Chicago v. Morales
Struck down Chicago's anti-gang loitering law which disproportionately targeted African American and Latino youth who were not engaged in criminal activity, and resulted in the arrest of 45,000 innocent people
This sums it up (Score:4, Interesting)
"But one thing appears reasonably certain, and that's that those who make allegations of a culture of deception, of intimidation or cover-up need to be extremely careful about such accusations."
Wow. That's from a DOD Town Meeting, May 11, 2004 [defenselink.mil]
This is what we're dealing with people.
Don't call it the Patriot Act (Score:4, Interesting)
The very name "Patriot Act" is intended to con people into thinking that a law more suited for a fascist country is benign and all-American, necessary to protect mom, the flag, and apple pie. They named the law carefully:
so that it would have this appealing acronym. I say we shouldn't go along with the scam. Don't call it the Patriot Act. Let's call it HR 3162.Re:In case anyone is interested (Score:3, Informative)
Mod down, disgusting dead baby jpeg.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. Not only do we have a law which allows secret investigations and arrests, and prohibits the accused from telling anyone about what's being done to them -- but apparently, the powers granted to the government by the law are themselves state secrets! This has gone beyond evil into insanity. When did my home become the Unites States of Kafka?
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Informative)
He's no savior.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're not basing that on 20/20 hindsight campaign promises intended to earn votes. The truth of the matter is that the country is so divided about what's happening here that either way, a large number of people are going to be unhappy. Either they'll do too much to stop terrorism, or they won't do enough. Niether situation is ideal, and the bitching will not die down.
You wanna be mad at somebody? Point to the asshole that thinks the right way to express himself is to brainwash people into flying planes into buildings.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither Democrats NOR the Republicans are doing much of anything to stop terrorism since the Taliban fell. There were no terrorists in Iraq, and now we're handing it over to Al Qaeda. So we're HELPING terrorists there, like it or not. Every intercepted cash transaction is NOTHING compared to the sheer amount of power we are busily giving them in the Middle East via Iraq.
Personally, I'm voting for Kerry because he's from a different party than the majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm counting on political gridlock to prevent the Democrats AND Republicans from achieving anything close to their goals. Kerry supported PATRIOT and the Iraq invasion. If the Democrats were in charge of Congress, I'd be campaigning for Bush.
Kerry will take this country in the exact wrong direction--the same wrong direction it's going under Bush. But good old fashioned party politics will make sure it goes there slower. I used to be disheartened to say things like that, but I realize that's just how it is. I'd vote for Erwin Rommel if he was running, because he's not a Republican. And he's not bad in the desert either.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
hmmm, fair enough. We do seem to get screwed least when neither party has enough power to push through something without help from the other side.
FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE: (Score:5, Informative)
[The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' " ]
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Informative)
Three points:
1) Russ Feingold voted against it. It'll be interesting to see if this comes back to bite him in the ass - he's up for re-election this fall. I hope he makes it; he's one of the few politicians in either party that I respect (even though I think the campaign finance reform bill is unconstitutional).
2) Most politicians didn't even read it before they voted on it, which is why there's a minor backlash against it now from both parties. Fortunately, at least some people paid attention. The Republican committee chairman responsible for vetting the bill before it hit the floor (I forget his name) actually read the original version that Ashcroft submitted, and deleted significant portions. Apparently the original allowed suspension of habeas corpus, and the chairman's response was something along the lines of "WTF?" (Of course, the administration seems to be getting away with that on its own; I hope the SCOTUS slaps them down.)
3) The bill was designed to fix some of the more obvious intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Although there's a lot of nasty stuff in it, people recognized immediately that some changes would need to be made. So, they were in a hurry to pass the bill because it was obvious that they'd been caught with their pants down. Which, of course, meant that they voted without thinking.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's partially how the unconstitutional redistricting in Colorado got through last year; a lot of republicans realized after the fact how bad it was, but they were told it would help them and didn't bother to read it before voting for it.
Personally, I think anybody who votes for something without reading it first (or at least, having a staffer read it and tell them what it does) ought to be voted out of office.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:4, Insightful)
He's getting the votes of everybody I know in the state for doing that.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's no savior.
True enough. However, the main effect of the 2004 election, in terms of civil rights, will not be in who the President is, but the people he appoints to the federal courts (note that there will almost certainly be one Supreme Court vacancy in 2005-2009, perhaps two, and of course plenty at lower levels) and as Attorney General. Kerry is no angel, but I really don't see him appointing anyone like Ashcroft, or any of Bush's recent judicial appointments.
It's also worth noting that given the time at which "USA-PATRIOT" was passed, and the speed with which it was rushed through Congress, very little meaningful opposition was possible. IIRC, only one Senator (Feingold?) actually voted against it. That doesn't let Kerry off the hook, but IMO people can be excused for doing dumb things in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Now, two and a half years later, it's a different story.
Re:The senator who opposed (Score:5, Informative)
The record is here. [senate.gov]
Wellstone voted Nay... don't you just love misinformation. Conspiracy theorists love that!
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Informative)
No, they blocked the 4 most objectionable nominees out of 100+. The rest were confirmed.
Get your facts straight.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Were you living in a cave during the Clinton years? The republicans were a lot more likely to block judges than the democrats are now. It's called "hypocrisy", and it's the single defining characteristic of the modern republican party.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scarier than you think... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Scarier than you think... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've considered that myself. While past presidents have certainly worked to erode rights in some areas (Clinton and the DMCA anyone), it usually was for the purpose of giving their palm-greasing pals something in return for buying their position. This guy, however, got the deal of a lifetime. Not only can he run roughshod over the public, environment, foreign policy, and everything else for the purpose of special interest and buddy-pal-ol-boy appeasement, he got the opportunity to use the single worst terrorst attack on U.S. soil in history to go play god with everything else. For awhile there, the answer to everything, no matter how idiotic it seemed, was "9/11 this" and "terrorism that". There are still people, more than 2 years later, running and hiding under their beds every time the president says that magic word: "terrorists".
If he is reelected, the only thing he has to fear is retribution from the laws of the land. However, with the introduction of things like PATRIOT, and talk of amending the constitution on a whim, he's suggested that maybe even that can't stop him.
However, even if the Administration does get reelected, there is still hope. A lot of members of Congress have been sitting up lately and taking notice to what's going on. The Republican controlled Congress wants to help its Republican president, but they're also starting to say "look, this is just too much".
Still, I'm hoping he's gone in November, and I'm terrified of what may happen if he's not... fewer and fewer people are laughing at me like I'm a looney tune now when I say I'm more scared of my own governments than any boogey-man terrorists...
Re:Scarier than you think... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says it will make news at all? Somewhere there's an unexplored angle of Michael Jackson or Kobi Bryant's trials that has not received full media saturation.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
On is to use a headline that says:
"Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site"
Another could be:
"Court Rules ACLU Violated Anti-Terror Law"
What's important is being able to recognize when somebody's spinning you.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Informative)
I've wondered, when someone receives a "National Security Letter" -- since it's illegal to reveal you've gotten one -- how does the recipient go about getting a lawyer?
"Law Offices."
"Uh, hi, I think I need a lawyer."
"What sort of legal services do you need sir?"
"Uh, I can't say."
"You can't say?"
"No, that's illegal, but I need a lawyer, to help me with this thing I can't talk about. You know, a secret lawyer for secret charges."
This is not the United States of America I learned about in school.
But then neither is sending Canadian Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured [www.cbc.ca], or exposing an undercover CIA agent for petty personal revenge [counterpunch.org], or setting up secret U.S. prison camps for 10,000 [nzherald.co.nz], or Military Intelligence encouraging torture in those prisons [yahoo.com], or lying about the reasons for going to war [villagevoice.com].
Wake up -- this is the same administration that ignored warnings of 9/11. Why do we keep rewarding this secretive, authoritarian, and incompetent administration?
So naturalized citizens aren't citizens? Implied.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Supposedly the US believes that a person who freely joins a country is just as much a citizen as one born to the land (other than that not being a president clause). The behavior of the officials sending Arar to Syria says otherwise: this should frighten any naturalized US citizen. The US sending Arar to Syria was an expediency issue: they could outsource the extraordinary rendition(*) they wanted for Arar. His Syrian past was convenient to the US officials wanting to work on him. (*torture)
Here are links to 24 articles about Arar and his torture [blogs.com], and here is what his lawyers write [edelsonandassociates.com]
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indian wars, which were prosecuted without leave from Congress.
Japanese internments in WWII
McCarthyism...
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
Have you not noticed the part about tearing up the constitution?
So... lacking a constitution... why can he only be in office 8 years?
I'm sure that when it does come... they'll "promise" to restore free elections "as soon as possible" and this will all be "temporary".
Step #1 - Make sure any of those pesky "militias" authorized by the constitution won't get in the way... check. (They've been sent over seas.)
Step #2 - Control information channels... check. (New law allows for more ownership of media outlets in major metropolitan areas.)
Step #3 - Make people feel "lucky" to have a job and be able to support their family. This keeps them too damn busy to pay attention to you... check. (Unemployment rates drop because people don't even apply any more, or have been unemployeed so long they drop off the rolls.)
Step #4 - Have your "friends" count the votes... check. (Less than one percent change can throw the election. Get electronic voting put in place and make sure there is not a paper trail.)
Step #5 - Remember that after the election you are still commander in chief for a few months and that "anything" could happen requiring you to call for martial law. Especially if the really bad thing kills the president elect and vice-president elect.
(Whoa... what happens then?)
Just a few items for a fiction novel.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom over safety. Applies to both Dems and Repubs. I'm sick of both parties trying to protect me from myself and "teh evil".
I'd rather deal with another 9/11 than have to live in a police state.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Funny)
I officially declare this thread over [astrian.net].
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:4, Insightful)
---Hermann Göring
If you're wondering whether this is happening in America, ask Max Cleland.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't be the Jews this time. It'll be the Muslims. Or maybe just the "potential terrorists".
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:3, Funny)
Jewish people? Aren't they of Middle Eastern descent?
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
You help him make his point, only it's not Jewish people. You're not hearing about all of the Muslims that they're keeping down at Guantanamo without charges or evidence or notification or anything like that. And that's the problem with this administration and the Patriot Act - georgie's boys can do whatever the hell they want and just say "It's a secret - you can't stop me".
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is still trying his first 'enemy combatant' cases which will determine whether he can have Americans detained at will without charge, trial, or the right to talk to the outside world.
He doesn't want to tolerate dissent, but he can't overplay his hand. Our system has checks and balances to presidential power, and he's removing them, one by one.
Even Hitler tried to legitimize his power before dissolving democracy completely. Bush is still in the phase of rooting out dissent in government and consolidating his power. For example, Karl Rove committed treason by blowing the cover of a CIA operative. Why hasn't he been tried? Numerous people in government have complained that Bush is trying to eliminate his critics.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are several possibilities.
1. Bush is adopting the mannerisms of an idiot in order that his real motivations will be concealed, and his actions will seem less devious.
2. A lack of wisdom and a simple mind make him easy prey for those in his administration who lust for power.
3. He's being mischaracterized by an overly critical press corps, and his mannerisms are close to True American Values (tm).
The last rationale seems implausible [msn.com].
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the ruling class of which he is a member is scared.
The house of cards that is big business finance is starting to topple (e.g. Enron, WorldCom)
Third world countries are starting to say no to unfair trade agreements.
The internet allows much easier communication between those who oppose the ruling class.
People are wising up about using the law to keep the actions of the government in check.
Some of the facts about the support of the US and European ruling class for Bad People such as Pinochet, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are coming out.
There are major troubles coming our way, caused in part by the actions of the ruling class (e.g. Global Warming, The exhaustion of fossil fuels, chemical poisoning of the ocean)
I think that what we have is a case of some people doing some bad things and then covering them up and continuing to do worse and worse things in order to stay in power.
There actions make perfect sense from their point of view (assuming you take ethics out of the equation). There are more of us than there are of them, so they need to use a range of dirty tricks to prevent us from removing them from power.
Dan.
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:4, Interesting)
Heres some speculation; the cover of war allows the president and the CIA power that they normally wouldn't have, and is a distraction from domestic issues. Bush has managed to deport a number of illegal immigrants from the US without the numerous complaints which would have been raised otherwise. The CIA has gotten the various Patriot acts passed, which would have been difficult in peacetime. A message has been sent to a number of nations; respond to America's diplomatic requests or we'll take you down. Iraq attacked Kuwait and threatened our ally Saudi Arabia, and Bush has close ties to the Wahabi (sp?) rulers of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis can't retaliate. That would be bad politically. But they can use the US to do so.
Iraq traded a lot of oil with France and Russia rather than the states. Not a good move.
The 'war on terrorism' is another war which justifies the US attacking its enemies in the eyes of the American people. You can decide for yourself whether this method of justifying a pre-emptive strike and preventing powers hostile to the US from 'going nuclear' is good or evil. Sadadm did want nuclear weapons. Iran and N.Korea were working on them.
Iraq had been trading too much oil with France and Russia, rather than the states, perhaps? I know that this is true, but it's hard to determine someone's motives if they want to keep them covered.
I don't think that Bush is 'evil' so much as he wants to acomplish his goals by any means necessary but that's a fine line.
Its called responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:5, Funny)
Court martials for the people who did it, honorable discharge for their superiors, slaps on the wrist for THEIR superiors, and the Secretary of Defense gets called "The Best Defense Secretary Evar."
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:4, Informative)
Since you brought it up. At the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rigths were written, any male that so desired could be part of the militia. During times that a militia was required, all of the male citizens were asked if they would like to join the militia. They brought there own weapons for use in combat. This militia did not get together to train and they were not part of militia during times of peace. The militia was quite simply a group of volunteers brought together in a time of crisis. Because of this the second amendment, as worded, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." clearly shows that being part of a militia is not a prerequisite to owning a firearm, but that individuals owning firearms is necessary for the security of the US and therefore a prerequisite for having a militia.
Here is a little background - source link 1982 Report of the Subcommittee of the Consitution [constitution.org]
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
And a particuallry eerie quote that seems applicable to this discussion, emphasis mine.
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
Re:Your civil rights called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not while there are more pressing matters like gay marriage, abortion, joblessness, and the rest of the war on terrorism to consider. It's not like people are turning a blind eye to the 'nerd lobby'.
Re:ACLU Good/Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
They are NEVER the bad guys. Simply because you don't like the form of speech or the civil right that they are defending at any given moment doesn't make them good or bad. They are, de facto, good. Please keep in mind a quote by Supreme Court Justice William Brennan: "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This applies to flag burning (as a veteran, I'm for it as valid political speech). It also goes beyond the First Amendment to ALL the other Amendments. Separation of Church and State is and must remain a solid wall. Offensive speech must remain protected regardless of your (or anyone else's) sensibilities. The ACLU is there to ensure this for the most offensive to the most inoffensive. There is no such thing as an OK and minor violation of Constitutional principle or of ANY Constitutional Right.
Re:ACLU Good/Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anti-Christian Lawers Union (Score:5, Insightful)
The ACLU is doing what it always does: it's trying to protect the rights of the minority from being squelched by a well meaning but misguided majority. There is no shame in having a secular government. After all, government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife. If you think the two should be mixed, then mix them in your church -- and expect the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Ba'hai, and Zoroastrians in your neighbourhood to do the same. Render unto Caeser what it Caesar's, man.