|
16 Jan 02 - 08:12 PM (#629361) Subject: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: katlaughing This was sent to me by another Mudcatter. I think it is worthy of note. Where there is emphasis, it is mine. FREE SPEECH GETS EXPENSIVE by William A. Collins (Columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut. If you're looking To get fined; Go downtown, And speak your mind. Back in 1950, after grappling with Nazis for five years, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal offered this frustrated pronouncement: "Individuals," it said, "have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience Therefore (individual citizens) have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." By this the judges clearly meant that the German populace should have risked its collective life by standing up to Hitler. Not being suicidal, however, very few Germans did, and the world paid the price. But the tribunal's words still carry a certain heft today, and they even reemerge from time to time here in our own, more tolerant, superpower nation. Here too, though, "violating domestic laws" for "peace and humanity" can prove hazardous to one's health. Clearly disagreement with federal policy is growing in gravity as a local criminal offense.
|
|
16 Jan 02 - 08:44 PM (#629382) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: McGrath of Harlow And here is a link to the Catholic Worker's Movement"
And here is an article in today's Guardian, by an American conservative, (Hans Nichols, who writes for the Washinton Times), who is getting worried about this kind of thing.
"I keep worrying that blind support for Bush's war measures - from infringements on civil liberties to extending the war farther and farther afield - could come at a price.
"Conservatives may wake up and realise that they've been complicit in the largest build-up of the federal government in 50 years. Liberals will wipe the sleep from their narrow little eyes and realise that they've been snookered into goose-stepping with the military industrial complex. The point is, none of us really knows." |
|
16 Jan 02 - 11:23 PM (#629446) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: katlaughing Thank you for posting that! Troubling times, indeed. |
|
16 Jan 02 - 11:32 PM (#629449) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: GUEST,guest again, thank you for posting this. have you noticed the number of constitutional rights which have been so very casually suspended, due to "measures necessary in time of war" despite the fact that we have not legally decalred war on anyone? Little things like the right to a fair trial and the necessity of a warrant, you know, from that insignificant document called the bill of rights? I hope the lawmakers and judges begin listening to the people, as they vow to do, and not to the lobbies and cowards. |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:18 AM (#629476) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: marty D Thanks for posting that kat. These are troubling times, although truth to tell, I don't feel the same anger towards Govt. agencies that I might. I think there are a lot of confused Law-makers these days feeling very much like they're in a classic catch 22. marty |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:43 AM (#629493) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: GUEST,eamonn k. |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:45 AM (#629495) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: GUEST,eamonn k. You all have too much time on your hands. Thank God adults are in the White House. eamonn k. |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:51 AM (#629501) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: GUEST If someone died, because of poorly advised postings by KatLaughing to the MC forum - it appears their surviving family could - extract their pound of flesh? From KatLaughing, Joe, the clones, or Max? |
|
17 Jan 02 - 07:06 AM (#629594) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: McGrath of Harlow Thank God adults are in the White House.
Adults? Choking on Pretzels? |
|
17 Jan 02 - 09:48 AM (#629682) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: SharonA Kevin (McGrath): Maybe "eamonn k" was talking about Dubbya's dogs... |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:25 PM (#629699) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: NicoleC I find it ironic that the staunch conservatives and far-left progressives are the ones agreeing most vehemently in their concern over erosion of civil liberties. What's next, meaningful dialog? ;) |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:41 PM (#629707) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: Bobert Yeah, ol' hillbilly bobert has been more than just a little concerned about feeding frenzy mentality of these supposed 85% of the Ameican people that think that Bush is doing a good job. Yes, when you get that kind of a lynch mob lathered up it's pretty scarey to me part of a small minority who feel otherwise. If you don't agree with the Bush/Cheney regime you will be painted as a traitor, terrorist or demon. They have the microphone and they are using it as a weapon. Tom Daschele stood up a couple of weeks ago against Bush's latest scheme to pay back his sponsors and guess what. The Sunday talk shows were filled with members of the runling class all singing the same "Dashele is a demon" song. Yep, this is exactly what they are going to do. They have telegraphed their punches and all too many are aimed directly at 1st Ammendment issues... |
|
17 Jan 02 - 12:44 PM (#629709) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: Ebbie I'm reading 'Resistance of the Heart', Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany, by Nathan Stoltzfus, a book published in 1996. The writer makes the point that the Nazi government, time after time, backed down or modified its stance when running into the wall of public opinion. He is citing instances, well documented, that imply that the populace could have affected the course and degree of persecution. He also details the progressive removal of rights from the people; some of them, scarily enough, are dead-on for today. When governments attempt war, I understand that the people need to acquire a certain mindset which is where propaganda comes in, but the voluntary relinquishment of rights, the abrogation of the right of the people to think and act and speak for themselves, complete with punishment, is another thing. Ebbie
|
|
17 Jan 02 - 07:09 PM (#630027) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: gnu Ebbie said ... He also details the progressive removal of rights from the people; some of them, scarily enough, are dead-on for today. Yep, gun control was high on Hiler's list. Without it, the "Individuals" may have been able to assume their international duties, which transcend the national obligations of obedience, to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring. Hey, just a thought that you may wish to consider, history being about to repeat itself and all, eh ? BTW, the installation of a national police force in Canada over the past several years shouldn't concern anyone, what with the new gun laws about to be enforced in 2003. We'll all feel safer, I'm sure. Gee, what colour are their shirts ? That's just a coincidence, I'm sure. Eh ? Eh ? EH!!?? |
|
17 Jan 02 - 07:15 PM (#630036) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: GUEST,MoFo The Minority Majority will rise up against the racist white republicans ! Wont be long now for the black and the brown to get revenge! If I was Georgie Bush I would run.... |
|
18 Jan 02 - 11:32 PM (#630930) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: katlaughing Uh, yeah...whatever....here's a bit more which calls for some action:
ACTION ALERT:
January 18, 2002
On its January 16 broadcast, ABC's World News Tonight aired this brief item about the annual report released that day by Human Rights Watch:
"The international human rights group Human Rights Watch has released its annual report, and it says that several countries are using the U.S.-led war against terrorism as a justification to ignore human rights. Human Rights Watch says that Russia, Egypt, Israel, China, Zimbabwe, Malaysia and Uzbekistan have all cracked down on domestic opponents in the name of terrorism."
That summary is close to what the group's press release stated (1/16/02): "The anti-terror campaign led by the United States is inspiring opportunistic attacks on civil liberties around the world, Human Rights Watch warned in its annual global survey released today."
But one country singled out for criticism by Human Rights Watch was conspicuously absent from ABC's report: the United States, whose anti-terrorism measures were described in the group's press release as "threatening long-held human rights principles."
Among Bush administration actions that were identified as demonstrating a "troubling disregard for well- established human rights safeguards" were "new laws permitting the indefinite detention of non-citizens, special military commissions to try suspected terrorists, the detention of over 1,000 people, and the abrogation of the confidentiality of attorney-client communications for certain detainees."
While ABC ignored this criticism of the U.S. in favor of pointing fingers at other countries, the rights report actually drew a connection between the erosion of human rights standards in the U.S. and overseas. As the London Guardian reported (1/17/02), "dictators 'need do nothing more than photocopy' measures introduced by the Bush administration, whose ability to criticize abuses in other countries was thus deeply compromised, said the New York-based Human Rights Watch in a devastating 660-page report."
ABC's exclusion of criticism of the U.S. did a disservice to its viewers. U.S. human rights problems are the ones that are most likely to affect them, and also those that they are most in a position to do something about.
ACTION: Please ask ABC to issue a correction to its original report about the Human Rights Watch Annual Report to reflect the group's criticisms of the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
CONTACT: |
|
19 Jan 02 - 12:46 AM (#630970) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: Coyote Breath Thanks Kat, for the thread. CB |
|
19 Jan 02 - 01:39 PM (#631151) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: katlaughing You're welcome, CB, thanks. Now it seems they are doing away with the Freedom of Information Act. Anyone else heard anything about this? Wondering if it just NEVER got out in the regular press??! Written by Tom Renino and posted at Portside: THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ask the networks for television time. The attorney general didn't hold a press conference. The media didn't report any dramatic change in governmental policy. As a result, most Americans had no idea that one of their most precious freedoms disappeared on Oct. 12. Yet it happened. In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar. Attorney General John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens. Passed in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Freedom of Information Act has been hailed as one of our greatest democratic reforms. It allows ordinary citizens to hold the government accountable by requesting and scrutinizing public documents and records. Without it, journalists, newspapers, historians and watchdog groups would never be able to keep the government honest. It was our post-Watergate reward, the act that allows us to know what our elected officials do, rather than what they say. It is our national sunshine law, legislation that forces agencies to disclose their public records and documents. Yet without fanfare, the attorney general simply quashed the FOIA. The Department of Justice did not respond to numerous calls to comment on the memo. So, rather than asking federal officials to pay special attention when the public's right to know might collide with the government's need to safeguard our security, Ashcroft instead asked them to consider whether "institutional commercial and personal privacy interests could be implicated by disclosure of the information." Even more disturbing, he wrote: "When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records." SAY WHAT? Somehow, this memo never surfaced. When coupled with President Bush's Nov. 1 executive order that allows him to seal all presidential records since1980, the effect is positively chilling. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, we have witnessed a flurry of federal orders designed to beef up the nation's security. Many antiterrorist measures have carefully balanced the public's right to know with the government's responsibility to protect its citizens. Who, for example, would argue against taking detailed plans of nuclear reactors, oil refineries or reservoirs off the Web? No one. Almost all Americans agree that the nation's security is our highest priority. Yet half the country is also worried that the government might use the fear of terrorism as a pretext for protecting officials from public scrutiny. Now we know that they have good reason to worry. For more than a quarter of a century, the Freedom of Information Act has ratified the public's right to know what the government, its agencies and its officials have done. It has substituted transparency for secrecy and we, as a democracy, have benefited from the truths that been extracted from public records. Consider, for example, just a few of the recent revelations -- obtained through FOIA requests -- that newspapers and nonprofit watchdog groups have been able to publicize during the last few months -- The Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization, has been able to publish lists of recipients who have received billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies. Their Web site, www.ewg.org, has not only embarrassed the agricultural industry, but also allowed the public to realize that federal money -- intended to support small family farmers -- has mostly enhanced the profits of large agricultural corporations. -- The Charlotte Observer has been able to reveal how the Duke Power Co., an electric utility, cooked its books so that it avoided exceeding its profit limits. This creative accounting scheme prevented the utility from giving lower rates to 2 million customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. -- USA Today was able to uncover and publicize a widespread pattern of misconduct among the National Guard's upper echelon that has continued for more than a decade. Among the abuses documented in public records are the inflation of troop strength, the misuse of taxpayer money, incidents of sexual harassment and the theft of life-insurance payments intended for the widows and children of Guardsmen. -- The National Security Archive, a private Washington-based research group,has been able to obtain records that document an unpublicized event in our history. It turns out that in 1975, President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave Indonesian strongman Suharto the green light to invade East Timor, an incursion that left 200,000 people dead. -- By examining tens of thousands of public records, the Associated Press has been able to substantiate the long-held African American allegation that white people -- through threats of violence, even murder -- cheated them out of their land. In many cases, government officials simply approved the transfer of property deeds. Valued at tens of million of dollars, some 24,000 acres of farm and timber lands, once the property of 406 black families, are now owned by whites or corporations. These are but a sample of the revelations made possible by recent FOIA requests. None of them endanger the national security. It is important to remember that all classified documents are protected from FOIA requests and unavailable to the public. Yet these secrets have exposed all kinds of official skullduggery, some of which even violated the law. True, such revelations may disgrace public officials or even result in criminal charges, but that is the consequence -- or shall we say, the punishment -- for violating the public trust. No one disputes that we must safeguard our national security. All of us want to protect our nation from further acts of terrorism. But we must never allow the public's right to know, enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act, to be suppressed for the sake of official convenience. ******* NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes. -- |
|
20 Jan 02 - 11:26 AM (#631615) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: M.Ted People in postions of power are always looking for ways to hide their mistakes--and 9/11 and the War on Terrorism has provided an opportunity--witness the cash grap by airlines, who had been in a serious slump before 9/11--and politicians are always looking for ways to discredit their opponents--these are realities,good times and bad-- Our freedoms are ideals that we strive for, not benefits that we can take for granted--if people stopped fighting for them, they would disappear-- |
|
20 Jan 02 - 12:25 PM (#631645) Subject: RE: BS: The HIGH cost of 'Free' Speech in USA From: bluedragon Cead mile faltie... well i dont actuly speak much Irish but hello my unkown friend, i think your A lateral guy, and i think a impressive guitarist, just read through A FEW OF YOUR OLD E-MAILS, and was quite amused. but I dissagree with America in it's reaction to 9/11, i think also if you truly belived what you said about the struggle for freedoom of speech and democracy being intwined in the active search for it, then youll understand that the oppressed poeple of palestine are the freeist people alive. America is a great nation as is britain... but the desire for control and influnce in the name of self gradisment, is fleeting and perishable, the world deserves more benighn leaders than what is on offer........Kofi Annan for president of the World!!! Carpe Deim Bro |