BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:00 PM

My gawd -- the combination of ignorance, lack of discernment and power to interfere is breathtaking!! I haven't seen the likes since the HUAC attacks on artists.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 08:56 PM

I try not to paste long articles into messages, but I've had trouble with the clicky. But! If you want paranoia, check this Associated Press report out.

Dec 29, 7:43 PM EST

FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers

By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning.

In a bulletin sent Christmas Eve to about 18,000 police organizations, the FBI said terrorists may use almanacs "to assist with target selection and pre-operational planning."

It urged officers to watch during searches, traffic stops and other investigations for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways.

"The practice of researching potential targets is consistent with known methods of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that seek to maximize the likelihood of operational success through careful planning," the FBI wrote.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bulletin this week and verified its authenticity.

"For local law enforcement, it's just to help give them one more piece of information to raise their suspicions," said David Heyman, a terrorism expert for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It helps make sure one more bad guy doesn't get away from a traffic stop, maybe gives police a little bit more reason to follow up on this."

The FBI noted that use of almanacs or maps may be innocent, "the product of legitimate recreational or commercial activities." But it warned that when combined with suspicious behavior - such as apparent surveillance - a person with an almanac "may point to possible terrorist planning."

"I don't think anyone would consider us a harmful entity," said Kevin Seabrooke, senior editor of The World Almanac. He said the reference book includes about a dozen pages out of its 1,000 pages total listing the world's tallest buildings and bridges but includes no diagrams or architectural schematics. "It's stuff that's widely available on the Internet," he said.

The publisher for The Old Farmers Almanac said Monday terrorists would probably find statistical reference books more useful than the collections of Americana in his famous publication of weather predictions and witticisms.

"While we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate," publisher John Pierce said.

The FBI said information typically found in almanacs that could be useful for terrorists includes profiles of cities and states and information about waterways, bridges, dams, reservoirs, tunnels, buildings and landmarks. It said this information is often accompanied by photographs and maps.

The FBI urged police to report such discoveries to the local U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force.
---
Geez, do you know how MANY almanacs we have in the library?   Be careful, you could be detained for carrying a concealed almanac!

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 08:27 PM

Thank you for posting the update, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 07:43 PM

So, the sky aint falling? Tell it to the citizens that have been arrested and detained for up to 74 days without council, or the chance to tell their families what happened to them.

Anyone who thinks we can defeat terrorism with war is an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 04:31 PM

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG
By David Martin    12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law - stealthily

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W.
Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out
his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A
White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a
Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time
Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a
spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the
federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively
consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote.
Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head
lice, few were
aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial
records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or
terrorism.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new
executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a
legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal
government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of
"financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes
stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance
agencies,
jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash
transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory
matters."

Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S.
Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for
the act.
The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability.
While
broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration
is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the
FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the
records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't
have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to
believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity.
Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order,
preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their
records
have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag
order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be
required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security
Letters.

Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary
to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers
to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert
Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for
Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the
terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we
apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to
meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster."

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like
judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable
search
and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason
these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at
Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political
repression. "It has
been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it.
For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that
they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into
a program to silence dissent."

Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and
terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president
of the
local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the
removal of
judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents."

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the
Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power.
Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for
Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot
Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's
staff.
Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration
was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then
exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's
strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its
parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial
institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration
and its
Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the
expansion of the Patriot Act.

Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these
legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are
added on may
not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor
Robert Summers.

The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest
constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect
United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the
test of
public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why
use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process?

http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:21 AM

Problem is, Kevin, that the Korematsu types are pretty thin on the ground at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 06:52 AM

And here's a page with a picture of Korematsu, and a lot of other good people.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 06:49 AM

Well it is - it's the homeland of people like Fred Korematsu.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 10:46 PM

Yessir, the Land Of The Free & The Home Of The Brave... Kinda chokes ya up, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 07:29 PM

Another aspect of this whole thing - "One of Britain's most senior judges condemned the American courts last night for a 'monstrous failure of justice' by refusing to rule on the claims of Taliban suspects held without trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba...."

"...By denying the prisoners the right to raise challenges in a court about their alleged status and treatment, the United States government is in breach of the minimum standards of customary international law."

That's the third most senior judge in the UK, Lord Steyn, in a formal legal lecture. And that comes from a report in the right-wing London newspaper, the Daily Telegrapj - 'Monstrous US justice' attacked by law lord

And a historical connection has just come up that might make a few people think. Back in 1944 there was a Supreme Court decision in the case of "Korematsu vs. United States" - a young Japanese American trying to fight the internment camps set up in the US for other Japanese Americans. And in what has been described as "one of the most infamous decisions ever rendered by the US Supreme Court", the court upheld the legality of the camps.

Fred Korematsu was given the Medal of Freedom in 1998 for his fight against internment. And Bush's father apologized to Japanese Americans on behalf of the United States.

Well, now Fred Korematsu, aged 82, has come to Washington once more -this time to file a brief on behalf of hundreds of detainees, asking for their detention without trial or charge to be ruled illegal. Another chance for the Supreme Court to distinguish itself in the same way it did regard to the Japanese Americans.

(More on these matters here, in the Christian Scvience Monitor)

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 02:18 PM

". . . but what is completely different is the intent behind each."

Wishful thinking, Teribus. What matters is not necessarily the intent (and as in the case of Hitler, how does one really know what that actually is?), but the fact that the law exists at all and can be used for a whole variety of intents.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 11:43 AM

pdc,

Your post of 26 Nov 03 - 06:29 PM, I couldn't agree more. They should be taken to the cleaners.

Don Firth - 26 Nov 03 - 12:33 PM

"..Hitler insisted on passing something very similar to the Patriot Act in order to clamp down on Communists and "enemies of the state" and he (Hindenberg) signed it. If you read the law that Hitler drafted and compare it with stipulations of the Patriot Act, the wording is spookily similar."

Hardly surprising that the wording might be spookily similar, but what is completely different is the intent behind each. The former was aimed at what one particular group regarded as an "enemy within" that had to be neutralised in order to gain complete control. The latter (Patriot Act) was aimed at streamlining the process, and improve intelligence gathering and law enforcement in order to protect US citizens from an external threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 06:29 PM

The Arar case reflects very badly on the US government, and if things come to pass as they seem to be doing, it will reflect very badly on the Canadian government as well, the RCMP specifically.

That poor, brutalized man deserves to be compensated by both these governments for what he went through, as well as by Syria and Jordan.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 02:50 PM

Amos, thanks for the link to Bill Moyers' Media Reform speech. It's so nice these days to hear or read an eloquent and articulate voice of sanity.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw nothing at all in the U. S. media about the Arar case. Had I not been aimlessly channel-surfing one evening a couple weeks ago, or possibly for some mentions of it here on Mudcat, I would probably not be aware of it even now. In my channel-surfing, I encountered the CBC channel as Maher Arar himself began reading his statement before the cameras. For those unacquainted with the case, HERE is a transcript of the statement that I heard Arar making.

And for those who twit us with sneering remarks like "The sky is falling," Arar's ordeal is a good-sized piece of that sky hitting the ground with a very loud thump!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:56 PM

it already does affect us, as I'm sure you are aware pdc.

John Ashcroft has defended sending a Canadian citizen to Syria to be tortured by stating that he, Ashcroft, was given assurance by the govenment of Syria, that the Canadian citizen wouldn't be tortured there and he (Ashcroft) was misled. This despite the fact that, according to US's own State Department, Syria is one of the top listed nations which regularly practices torture.

One might surmise that Mr. Ashcroft was naive or of limited mental capacity to accept Syrian assurances.

One also might surmise that John Ashcroft was a tad forgetful, for not recalling that the United States, as a signatory of the International Convention Against Torture, is obligated to avoid deporting people to countries known to practice torture.

One might surmise too, that Mr. Ashcroft forgot that Arar was a citizen of Canada and it just slipped his mind to inform Canadian officials of Arar's detention, in apparent violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

However, I for one, do not believe one becomes US Attorney General by being naive, of limited mental capacity or absentminded. Arrogant perhaps.....a liar, quite possibly; a danger to Canadians and Americans alike, in Ashcroft's case, most certainly.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:49 PM

Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and – in defiance of the Constitution – from their representatives in Congress. Never has the so powerful a media oligopoly – the word is Barry Diller's, not mine – been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the people's need to know. When the journalist-historian Richard Reeves was once asked by a college student to define "real news", he answered: "The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." When journalism throws in with power that's the first news marched by censors to the guillotine. The greatest moments in the history of the press came not when journalists made common cause with the state but when they stood fearlessly independent of it.
...

---

From a talk given by Bill Moyers on Media Reform, available on this page and worth reading.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:39 PM

Don,

Thanks for that Thinking for Peace site -- I consider it highl;y valuable!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:19 PM

A very interesting collection of reading material can be found HERE.

An excellent speech delivered by a man whom I admire very much HERE. He also has a weekly program on PBS, that hotbed of liberal propaganda. In my area it's 8:00 p.m. on Fridays; check with your local PBS affiliate. What makes this man an anathema to the Right is that he reports things that the Right would rather you not be aware of.

Be informed

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 12:33 PM

Teribus, you are correct about the way Hitler attained office (HERE). My apologies to the German electorate. The mistake was Hindenberg's. And a further mistake of Hindenberg's was when Hitler insisted on passing something very similar to the Patriot Act in order to clamp down on Communists and "enemies of the state" and he (Hindenberg) signed it. If you read the law that Hitler drafted and compare it with stipulations of the Patriot Act, the wording is spookily similar.

There is a possible comparison here. Bush is inept and easily led. Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, and a couple of others constitute the real government of the United States.

The nice part about it is that if we get rid of Bush, we also get rid of them. At least, temporarily.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 02:57 AM

A small point but worthy of note for the record:

Don Firth - 25 Nov 03 - 06:02 PM

"I remind you that Hitler was elected to office. How many people would have voted for him if they'd had any idea of what he was really up to? Yet, he gave plenty of indication."

GUEST,pdc - 25 Nov 03 - 06:27 PM

"There is one problem, however, with your Bush-Hitler analogy, Don, and that is that once Hitler had been elected, he banned free elections."

The fact however is that in 1933 Hitler was NOT elected to office, he was appointed to that office by the President, Paul von Hindenburg. Even at that he was Hindenburg's third choice, the first was Franz von Papen being the incumbent Chancellor immediately after the elections, and the second was Kurt von Schleicher. Hindenburg was in no doubt whatsoever where Hitler was leading the country, the conservatives however believed that they could control Hitler in the role of Chancellor (The government that Hitler formed in 1933 only contained 3 of his own Party out of 11 ministers). NO doubt Wolfgang will be able to corroborate the above, a search in google definitely will.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 10:44 PM

Here's what the DLC was saying in August 2003:

"However, while the president was a prime target, the man who drew the most fire and venom was Howard Dean, who, according to the DLC, is the only man whom George Bush will vanquish. They say that the unfortunate former governor of Vermont doesn't stand a chance of winning because he has opposed the war in Iraq and works happily with the street activists against the administration's present policies in Iraq. Worse, Dean has promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts and spend vast sums on medical benefits.

"The DLC foams at the mouth because of Dean's campaign style, particularly when he introduces himself as from "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The Party elite see Howard Dean, not as another Bill Clinton, but as a look-a-like for George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale, with no chance of winning even his own state.

"Yet to the majority of Vermonters, Dean's support of business interests, his budget surplus, his tax cuts, his "workfare" and health care reforms -- together with endorsements from the National Rifle Association -- make him an excellent centrist candidate. But Howard Dean is now firmly seen as a "man of the left." He already has the activist anti-war vote, he will get the support of the AFL-CIO and he is already campaigning against the Bush foreign policy. "

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 07:45 PM

Lord, Don, you make me wish I was American -- I'm not, I'm a Canadian who is very interested in what is happening south of the border, as it will eventually affect us, probably negatively.

However, I do belong to a forum on American politics, and I will (as I've done before) steal your ideas and pass them along -- that last post will go complete and untouched to those who can do something.

I enjoy your posts very much, and wish there were more Americans like you.

pdc

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 07:42 PM

As I understand it, the DLC never was too hot on Dean anyway. They are very "middle of the road" and some even regard them as "imitation Republicans." Dean, to there minds, is "too liberal." But if I may be forgiven for once again quoting Harry Truman, "When people are given a choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll pick the Republican every time."

Granted, it doesn't look good, but are we going to just roll over and play dead?

What can people do? This is one way to go about it. I've suggested this before, but people have just whined about the wussiness of the Democrats. Well, what Hartmann is suggesting is that if you don't like the Democratic Party the way it is now, get in and change it. He means you! It will require hard work and a willingness to confront.

On the voter fraud thing, here's something that can be done: Rush Holt, Representative from the 12th Congressional District in New Jersey has taken some steps in the right direction. Electronic voting okay if it leaves a checkable paper trail. Proposed legislation HERE. Flog your Senators and Representative to get on board or sponsor similar legislation. You do know who your Senators and Representatives are (and how to get in touch with them), don't you!??

It won't be easy, and there are no guarantees, but again, if good men (and women) do nothing. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 07:03 PM

A note of optimism can be found in the article by David Brim in this thread.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 06:27 PM

Don Firth said, and I agree: "It has been said that evil triumphs because good men do nothing."

There is one problem, however, with your Bush-Hitler analogy, Don, and that is that once Hitler had been elected, he banned free elections. Bush has been elected, and has in all likelihood, rigged the free elections. So what can the good men do now?

I'm hoping that in the US, the Democrats will put up a strong candidate, but there's a good chance that the Clintons have put the kibosh on that. Dean is at present the most popular candidate, but apparently the Clintons have just pulled out of the DLC because they think Dean can't beat Bush. Unfortunately, they have taken all their millions of dollars' worth of contributions with them, probably to use for Hillary in 2008. Ugly, ugly.

Although there is still much that Dean can do, without the war chest of the DLC behind him, he's probably sunk. The GOP have enormous funds, and that's what seems to win elections these days.

A sad state of affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 06:02 PM

Perhaps things in this country are not that bad yet, Wolfgang, but my point still holds. They are hurtling in that direction. If you are out of control and skiing downhill at excessive speeds toward a grove of trees, just because you haven't splattered yourself into one yet doesn't mean you have no cause for concern. It's better to take whatever steps you can, while you still can, than it is to remain blithely unconcerned until you suddenly see the bark about six inches from your nose.

That qualifies, as I have defined somewhere else, as a "Wile E. Coyote moment."

I remind you that Hitler was elected to office. How many people would have voted for him if they'd had any idea of what he was really up to? Yet, he gave plenty of indication. But as long as he promised to make the trains run on time, many people didn't take the rest of it very seriously. The rest is history.

It has been said that evil triumphs because good men do nothing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 04:44 PM

Hitler banned free elections; Bush is rigging them. People in the US are being banned from marching in protest against this administration. The differences between this regime and the regime in 1930s Germany is small, and getting smaller by the day.


This is one reason why the FBI was ordered by Ashcroft this month to surveil all anti Bush demonstrations. Provisions in Patriot Act II will allow the jailing of demonstrators as enemy combatents.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 04:31 PM

This article from the LA Times regarding the military's domestic
surveillance operations may be of interest. From the IP Mail List

Full article here

Mission Creep Hits Home

SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. . Preoccupied with the war in Iraq and still
traumatized by Sept. 11, 2001, the American public has paid little
attention to some of what is being done inside the United States in the
name of anti-terrorism. Under the banner of "homeland security," the
military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching
changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises
and will break down long-established barriers to military action and
surveillance within the U.S.

"We must start thinking differently," says Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed"
Eberhart, the newly installed commander of Northern Command, the
military's homeland security arm. Before 9/11, he says, the military and
intelligence systems were focused on "the away game" and not properly
focused on "the home game." "Home," of course, is the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 04:26 PM

Not as bad yet, Wolfgang, but getting there. Hitler banned free elections; Bush is rigging them. People in the US are being banned from marching in protest against this administration. The differences between this regime and the regime in 1930s Germany is small, and getting smaller by the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 03:54 PM

Back in the early Thirties, I wonder how many German citizens responded to the concerns other German citizens expressed about the direction their government was going with contemptuous remarks like "Oh, Sure! The sky is falling (sneer sneer)!"

Don, the example you have chosen damages your own position. "The sky is falling" is the response of someone who doesn't take a point of view serious. In the Germany of the 1930, like in any totalitarian regime, dissenting points of view were not shrugged off with a more or less silly remark, but were taken dead serious. Remarks against the "honour of Germany", slandering of der Fuehrer or his intentions could bring you to jail or worse.

So the response to your questions is, most likely no one at all. For even those listening to such remarks and not reporting were in danger of punishment. Your example beautifully demonstrates the difference between a totalitarian regime and a democracy with at least some basic human rights. I see your argument as unwillingly supporting Teribus' point about freedom of speech being an indicator that things are not as bad yet.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 03:00 PM

I agree with both Amos and Don Firth.

Teribus -- you don't address such issues as so-called "legal" terrorism, i.e. the US bombing Iraq without any sound reason to do so.
You don't address the issues that created terrorism against the US in the first place, and that is absolutely necessary if you are going to conduct dialogue on this issue.

So answer this please: why did terrorist attacks occur against the US on 9/11? Why not against another country, Israel for instance?

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 02:23 PM

Back in the early Thirties, I wonder how many German citizens responded to the concerns other German citizens expressed about the direction their government was going with contemptuous remarks like "Oh, Sure! The sky is falling (sneer sneer)!" And I wonder how many of them eventually wound up staring out through the barbed wire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 02:07 PM

Teribus:

The issue we raise is not that some imaginary sky is falling, and it is inaccurate to characterize it as such.

The problem is not the sky; it is the erosion of checks and balances. For example, the authority of police or other law-enforcements to define for themselves when someone is a suspect, grant themselves warrant and determine for themselve what their rights of seizure are is a new low from the point of view of citizen security. Sourely you can see this. It may not seem a threat because of the context in which you place it -- during a war against an unspecified enemy, and exercised by an agency you perhaps trust (the FBI).

I hope your confidence is well-placed, but hope is a piss-poor strategy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 12:53 PM

pdc,

In answer to the situation covered in your first paragraph - Repeal the legislation. The situation though is highly unlikely IMO - terrorist threats will not end, they will vary in intensity, sophistication and in scale, but the trend will be diminishing.

In reality the scenario you describe, albeit inaccurately, in your second paragraph is more likely to prove to be the case. I say inaccurately because it is not just Bush, or the United States of America's "war on terrorism", it is international (Review the list of terrorist organisations on the State Department's List - many have no link to actions/aspirations that threaten the USA), it should be the business of the United Nations. The only problem is that they have never really been known for acting with resolve on any issue - due mainly to the fact that all member states always tend to put self-interest first.

In the interim, the level of co-operation between the various intelligence and security agencies world-wide will have improved - They already are a thousand times better than they were prior to 11th September, 2001. The monitoring operations, that so many object to, will cause those wishing to finance and support terror to alter the means by which they conduct their business, it will become increasingly harder for them. Look where their most recent strikes have been, in what you describe as "the so-called ongoing war", Saudi Arabia and Turkey (Muslim countries; muslim fatalities) - The message is clear no-where is safe. It is a war nothing "so-called" about it.

Undoubtedly the USA; UK; Australia; et al, will suffer an attack - my bet is that due to the legislation put in place, combined with the improvement in international co-operation, those attacks, when they come, will be on a much smaller scale (we already know about one such planned attack on the USA that was completely averted).

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 11:59 AM

Consider this, Teribus. Eventually the terrorist threats will end, and all this legislation will be in place. Then what?

OTOH, Bush's "war on terrorism" is an open-ended term which will allow the US government to use whatever means necessary to fight a so-called ongoing war that only they define.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 10:25 AM

"Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data"

Now those amongst the Mudcat community who live the US of A, squawk about their concern. Erosion of civil rights, a means to subvert the constitution and hi-jack the nation for all time, being offered up as the ultimate motives behind this legislation.

Grounds for making any of those assertions are pretty thin on the ground.

While predicting all of the above, those same people castigate the current administration for not acting, or responding, quickly enough to various intelligence warnings regarding the attacks of 11th September, 2003. They would far rather prefer to believe some highly convoluted conspiracy theory than face up to the reality, that intelligence and security organisations are secretive, they do treasure and hoard both information and sources of information, they do "protect" what they perceive as being their turf, all of which counters effective co-operation. Post 9/11, that situation could not be allowed to continue, those matters had to be addressed.

Homeland Security, Patriot Act, go someway towards that - they are something similar to the temporary anti-terrorist legislation introduced in the UK during the days of the PIRA bombing campaigns.

If what all the alarmists contend were true, particularly for the motives they espouse - judging by some of the posts running throughout this forum - a whole stack of them would have gone silent a long time ago. They haven't, they are still here, exercising their right to free speech, still exercising their right to criticise, still highly vocal in their condemnation of their current government. Long may they continue to do so - I have no doubt they will, and will be allowed to do so, by the current American Administration and whatever one that is elected to replace it in 2004.

You are the guys that are running around yelling that, "The sky is falling." DougR, myself and a few others only draw your attention to that every now and again in order to tell you THAT IT AIN'T.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 08:26 AM

Well, Looks to me like J. Edgar Hoover's F.B.I.... Damn the torpedoes... Shoot first and don't ask or answer and questions...

Now as fir Dr. Dean. What is his position on assault rifles? You know the sunset provisons on its ban are near and if Congress doesn't extend them then these guns will be legal again. These are not hunting rifles. Their only pupose is lay down the kind of fire power that is intended to kill people.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 12:58 AM

Ladyjean, please just keep your friends away from Canada, okay? Hunters from the cities shoot cows, dogs, goats, trees, cars, and sometimes people. I hope your friends are not the types that buy $2500 worth of "real man" clothing from Abercrombie & Fitch, $2500 worth of booze, $6000 rifles, then go into the bush with their portable TVs, cellphones, $50,000 SUVs, get drunk and shoot any and everything that moves.

We don't like them much. I just know you wouldn't have friends like that!;)

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 12:44 AM

What Dr. Dean says about gun control is that city dwellers, like me, favor it, because we want to take the illegal guns away from criminals. Rural Americans oppose it because they don't want to lose their hunting rifles.
There was a gang war in my neighborhood this summer. I wanted those creeps disarmed in the WORST WAY!
This weekend, several of my friends will be out trying to turn deer into venison. As long as they obey the laws, I'm OK with that. They buy their rifles legally, get permits, and keep them under lock and key. They are not a threat to public safety.
Dean probably has another e petition on his web page against Patriot Act II. Check out deanforamercia.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Nov 03 - 11:37 PM

Don't beat around it, Beat the Bush!!

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 03 - 10:46 PM

My god -- the FBI has just been authorized to act like so many Storm Trioopers:

---

(From Wired news:)
Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts.

A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge.


Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can acquire bank records and Internet or phone logs simply by issuing itself a so-called national security letter saying the records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI doesn't need to show probable cause or consult a judge. What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation.

---

Secret Polizei, here we come -- I bust ya and I gag ya in one fell swoop just because I decide you're germane to a terrorist investigation... holy moly!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: maire-aine
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:14 PM

The Detroit NEWS (usually very conservative, pro-Republican, pro-Bush) ran a 4-day series of editorials on the subject of the Patriot act and the erosion of the Bill of Rights. Very unusual of them to devote that much time and space to a single subject. You can check it out at Detroit NEWS , and look for the Losing Liberty: Due Process articles.

Maryanne

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 11:59 AM

Gee, Rap, looks like a concurrency of viewpoint there!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:10 AM

As I keep saying, the business of government is not business. The business of government is government. A government that loses sight of this will not only fall, but fail.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:47 AM

There is an important core point at the bottom of all this; there are principles about running a nation that are based on concern for human well-being and basic civil rights which do not apply to the running of corporations for profit. When "leadership" (I spit) confuses the two systems, and tries to run a nation like a corporation, all kinds of woes are unleashed upon it and them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 10:53 PM

Like Howard Dean says, "If I had been running aginst Bush I*'d be President becuase of my support of the the NRA". Okay, that might not be entirely accurate down to the the word but that is purdy much what the man has said...

Hey, politics is about coilitions....

If it takes joinin' hands with the NRA to get Bush out, its worth the compromise...

Then we'll talk about assault weapons and....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 10:30 PM

Some quotes about "Patriot Act 2." Read 'em, my source for them follows.

"So it looks like they (Ashcroft/Bush & Co.) are very far along in writing this document and are just waiting for a war or 'event' to drop it on Congress' lap. Of course, being the lap dogs they are, they will kneejerk react and pass the whole thing without reading it (just like they did the 540 page PA1; they didn't even take time to read it, much less study it or debate it). We will most likely get an 'event' (courtesy of the gov't?) and will certainly get a war (courtesy of the gov't)."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread. We need to enlarge and strengthen that thread until it's enough of a rope to hang the bastards who keep jumping out there with scissors, trying to free themselves of its constraints. Then we need to make it stronger in support of liberty."

"If a President like Bill Clinton were to have pushed this agenda, do you think we would allow it??? I think this transends politic party lines..."

""A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --- Ben Franklin"

"" Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II"

"Yes, when I think of the words "terrorist attacks," images of the Pentagon burning don't come to mind, nor do pictures of the twin towers crumbling to earth. I see a great country diminished to a shadow of what it once was. All of this happens not from chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, but from our own passivity and indecision. They label it a "Patriot Act," but I call it a sad, twisted irony."

And now...these liberal, radical, anti-American views were expressed on the website of www.packing.org, proponents of carrying concealed deadly weapons!

It's not just the "liberals" who feel threatened by Patriot Act 2....

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:40 PM

Look over the oceans, look over the lands,
Look over the leaders with the blood on their hands.
And open your eyes and see what they do,
When they knock on the door, friend, they're knocking for you

With their knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
With their knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more.

       -Phil Ochs

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Reiver 2
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:34 PM

I agree that Bush, Ashcroft, etc. are not conservatives, but they certainly are NOT liberals, either! Fascists, is probably the best descriptive term, though all political labels have become pretty meaningless today. Molly Ivins, the columnist from Texas had a good quote recently: "Fascism should more properly called 'corporatism', since it is the marriage of government and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini. That's about where Bush & Co. are rapidly taking us.

Reiver 2

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:18 PM

pdq, isn't, Kat..... Yet, that is.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:15 PM

pdq, I hope your are in the majority among conservatives:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:07 PM

Fascism is neither conservative nor liberal. It is the politica belief-set of the control freak.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 06:50 PM

Bush is not operating as a conservative and he violates the most basic plank of the conservative platform: limited government. It can now be said that I agree with Bobert. (this point only, please!)

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 06:41 PM

The Bush adminstration is not conservative in any way or form. These folks are screamin' liberals if I've ever seen 'em! They're gonna have big governemnt in everyones lives! Conservatives don't like that kind of Big Brother type governemnt. Take away the fact that Bush is lining the pockets of rich folks and he ain't really got anyone who supports him!

Oh yeah, the polls... What a joke! You take away the very expensive and unprecedented publicly financed PR program and get the politicans out of controling the media and Bush's support would be in single digits...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 06:38 PM

As a conservative (thanks Don, not a "NEO-Con", whatever that is), I feel that the current bill is invasive and violates my rights, especially the ones concerning privacy. I also did not like the FBI abuses by LBJ, J.E.Hoover's favorite president. I did not like abuses by Nixon, and I ceratinly did not appreciate Hilary loading the contents of thousands of FBI files into her personal whitehouse computer! Governmental abuse of power is not limited to one side or one party.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 05:56 PM

They might use the term "conservative", but they think it just means backing a rightwing government, even when it tears up the traditions which conservatives should be dedicated to preserving.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 05:38 PM

Why conservatives are not screaming like a flock of outraged eagles over the Patriot Act is a mystery to me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 08:54 AM

Those assholes wont rest until we are all living in an armed camp.
The death penalty. Ah yes. The final solution eh? NOT!! those Muslims would rather die in the cause now than spend the rest of their lives in Cuba or some other hell hole. Executing them is setting them free! Will we ever learn to think like our enemies? Some great General once said "You can never defeat an enemy if you don't understand him."

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 08:45 AM

Ah, but it's not
being used against terrorist.

And Gargoyle, I've spoken with members of police forces in Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Maryland, and a US Marshal, all of whom are frightened by the implications of the Patriot Act. Some actually detest it as a insult to their professional abilities and an undermining of the Constitution (they take their oaths seriously). None of these men and women, by the way, can by any stretch be considered a "liberal"; two of them have been decorated from bravery in the line of duty. Two also made the point that the FBI, no matter what their mandate, doesn't share anything, "even a cup of coffee," with local or state law enforcement agencies. Nor am I particularily liberal; I turned a child porn consumer over to the local cops when we found him looking as pictures of naked kids at "my" public library (as was right, and not only because it's a crime).

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:26 AM

And you didn't realize that "Judge Dread" was more than just a kid's comic book?

It's just as satirically predictive as Orwell's "1948" - about "Big Brother"?

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 12:31 AM

You know what they say about "assuming" anything, Greg...you sure do a lot of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 12:25 AM

They worry ME little cat....... much less than citizen-folks like you.

It IS within YOUR immediate position in LIFE....to make an immediate change within YOUR life....and yet,,,,,,,,,why do you,me,we, wait????

It is so much easier to be "Judicial" in our own lives than to exercise our GOD given "Exercutive Power" touching the small world we encompass and live-in.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 12:20 AM

Boy, we've really been Bushwhacked for the past two years, haven't we?

Even though the administration is confident that the United States is winning the war on terrorism, they said, they have run into legal obstacles that need to be addressed. Do ya think those "obstacles" just might be the checks and balances we are supposed to have for protection from this kind of intrusion?

They worry me seriously, too, Amos. The best thing we can do is make sure everyone we know gets out AND VOTES!!! That and sign the Impeach Bush et alia petition.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amergin
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 12:16 AM

yeah...well the next step is to redefine terrorism....

Subject: BS: Grounds for Concern: Patriot II
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:46 PM

From the NY Times:

Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data



By ERIC LICHTBLAU

   

ASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — For months, President Bush's advisers have assured a skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act because its most intrusive measures would require a judge's sign-off.

But in a plan announced this week to expand counterterrorism powers, President Bush adopted a very different tack. In a three-point presidential plan that critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Mr. Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents — without the approval of a judge or even a federal prosecutor — to demand private records and compel testimony.

Mr. Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes like terrorist financing, and he wants to make it tougher for defendants in such cases to be freed on bail before trial. These proposals are also sure to prompt sharp debate, even among Republicans.

Opponents say that the proposal to allow federal agents to issue subpoenas without the approval of a judge or grand jury will significantly expand the law enforcement powers granted by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And they say it will also allow the Justice Department — after months of growing friction with some judges — to limit the role of the judiciary still further in terrorism cases.

Indeed, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is sponsoring the measure to broaden the death penalty, said in an interview that he was troubled by the other elements of Mr. Bush's plan. He said he wanted to hold hearings on the president's call for strengthening the Justice Department's subpoena power "because I'm concerned that it may be too sweeping." The no-bail proposal concerns him too, the senator said, because "the Justice Department has gone too far. You have to have a reason to detain."

But administration officials defended Mr. Bush's plan. Even though the administration is confident that the United States is winning the war on terrorism, they said, they have run into legal obstacles that need to be addressed.

"We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."

In announcing his plan on Wednesday, Mr. Bush said one way to give authorities stronger tools to fight terrorists was to let agents demand records through what are known as administrative subpoenas, in order to move more quickly without waiting for a judge.

The president noted that the government already had the power to use such subpoenas without a judge's consent to catch "crooked doctors" in health care fraud cases and other investigations.

The analogy was accurate as far as it went, but what Mr. Bush did not mention, legal experts said, was that administrative subpoenas are authorized in health care investigations because they often begin as civil cases, where grand jury subpoenas cannot be issued.

The Justice Department used administrative subpoenas more than 3,900 times in a variety of cases in 2001, the last year for which data was available. The subpoenas are already authorized in more than 300 kinds of investigations, Mr. Corallo said.

"It's just common sense that we should be able to use this tool against terrorists too," he said. "It's not a matter of more power. It's the fact that time is of the essence and we may need to act quickly when a judge or a grand jury may not be available."

Officials could not cite specific examples in which difficulties in obtaining a subpoena had slowed a terrorism investigation.

But Mr. Corallo gave a hypothetical example in which the F.B.I. received a tip in the middle of the night that an unidentified terrorist had traveled to Boston. Under Mr. Bush's plan, the F.B.I., rather than waiting for a judicial order, could subpoena all the Boston hotels to get registries for each of their guests, then run those names against a terrorist database for a match, he said.

---

These guys worry me seriously....

A