5.15.2003
Tools for action? Try out internetACTivism , a wealth of resources.
Learn
Act
Teach...
5/15/2003
|
Speaking to Power
Who are looking out for our rights? Who has the courage to stand tall and say "It is wrong" when refering to the PATRIOT act (Here is a comprehensive "field guide" of PATRIOT act links thanks to the ALA)?
The Patriot Act is not antiterrorism legislation; it’s antispeech legislation, and is no more a direct response to the September 11 attacks than the Children’s Internet Protection Act is a direct result of sincere concern by members of Congress about the safety of minors. The cold, cynical reality is that the Patriot Act is a bloated hodgepodge of speech-chilling law that lurked in congressional corridors not only before September 11 but in large part before the Bush administration. It was hustled into reality in the post-9/11 environment so quickly, secretively, and undemocratically that our Bill of Rights had been clocked with a one-two punch well before any of us realized it was under attack.
Did you miss the passage of the Patriot Act? No wonder; it was smuggled into law. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported, “several of the key procedural processes applicable to any other proposed laws, including inter-agency review, the normal committee and hearing processes and thorough voting, were suspended for this bill.”
Our Librarians, that's who.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center offers a vastly linked resource on the act.
The USA PATRIOT Act contains provisions that will chill or even criminalize people's legitimate expressions of their political views. For example, the Act creates a new category of crime, domestic terrorism, which blurs the line between speech and criminal activity. Section 802 of the Act defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal
laws" that "appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." This definition is so vague that acts of civil disobedience may be construed to violate the law. Civil disobedience typically seeks to influence government policy, and therefore may be construed as an attempt to coerce that change. Furthermore, the portion of the definition stating
that acts must be "dangerous to human life" is extremely broad: it does not distinguish between intentional acts and those that might cause inadvertent harm. Thus, a spontaneous demonstration that blocks the path of an ambulance might invite charges of domestic terrorism under the new law. Such a broad definition invites abuse, in which the distant possibility of danger
creates a pretext under which political activists can be arrested and charged with felony domestic terrorism, rather than the misdemeanor charges that they typically incur. This new crime will inhibit free speech regardless of whether it is enforced because it creates the fear of a disproportionate response to legitimate political expression.
I quoted the above from the Center For Constitutional Rights' .pdf "The State of Civil Liberties One Year Later"
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee can aid you in organizing a Pro-Democracy movement in your area. Take a look at the other areas who have stood up to this most un-American of statues.
Now we need to look at the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, better known as Patriot II. I have linked to this piece from Findlaw before, it is clear and to the point, Anita Ramasastry did a fine job explaining this companion in totalitarianism to the PATRIOT Act. To quote her:
Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which conferred broad new powers upon the federal government. Now John Ashcroft and his scribes at the Justice Department have been working secretly to create new, 120-page draft legislation that, if enacted, would expand greatly upon these already sweeping powers.
This daring sequel to the USA Patriot Act is known internally as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. It is also nicknamed Patriot II (the name by which I'll refer to it here), or Son of Patriot. On February 7 of this year, a January 9 draft of Patriot II was revealed to the public - but not by the government. It was made public only through a leak.
Here is .pdf of the leaked document. A confidential "section by section analysis of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act". In a Democracy confidentiality of something of this nature should set some alarms off in the heads of "We the People", don't you think?
Just to weave a sort of theme into this weeks postings I offer you An article about Federalist Society member Viet Dinh, one of the main architects of these laws that are turning the American reality and American jurisprudence into something out of Kafka's "The Castle":
Dinh has headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy since May 2001 and helped write the USA Patriot Act, which law enforcement officials credit with helping prevent terrorism and arrest terrorists. Civil liberties groups have criticized the law as a broad assault on privacy and constitutional protections.
further on
Dinh also worked in selecting federal judges and getting them confirmed by the Senate.
Dinh is connected to Ted Olsen, Priscilla Owens and Miguel Estrada, as well as Antonin Scalia from my post of the other day that reflected on judges who don't believe we have a guaranteed right to privacy. You'll note that the entire list belong to the Federalist Society. Attorney General Ashcroft is a member.
Here is another short article on the Federalist Society and its' pervasive influence on our government- and why the influence can be alarmingly far reaching.
More valuable Federalist Society info, this from the Commonweal Institute.
Are you familiar with People for the American Way?
I hope that this information is useful to you. There is a ton of reading linked here today; enough to keep one an engaged auto-didact for days and days. This information is crucial in these times of Presidential "fibbery" and media obsfucation.
My hope is that I have left enough good links to allow anyone to be more than conversant with the inroads the Patriot Act is making on our liberties, we need to engage people in conversation about this stuff. Same with the Federalist Society, PFAW offers a couple appendices that show how our Government is riddled with people more than ready to deprive us of our Freedoms, the very things that we self define ourselves as Americans by.
The 9/11 resources allow "We the People", the regular folks that are America to see through the shifting sories and media smokescreen to be able to ask logical, sensible questions. The answers seem as though they are of such import that when they are revealed people, regular people like us, will know that the corporatism in the White House is the opposite of Patriotism, as far from love of country as one can get, a treacherous mix of lies and profiteering that puts our country at risk as well as our Constitution.
Please share all you get familiar with, bounce what you are learning of people; it will help in your judgement and analysis, help in forming a cohesive world view.
I sadly say I will be away for a week or so. If I can get computer access I sure will try to work up a good posting. Use the blogroll on the sideboard to access good reads, I'm pretty picky about who gets entered there; they are in no particular order and are all really good.
Keeping up wth the news and sharing what I learn is really important to me. I hope it is to you too. We are Democracy, and in a world where the President can and will lie, where the media will not ask questions of Power we are its last hope.
We can be heroes.
5/15/2003
|
Some poetry anyone?
5/15/2003
|
5.14.2003
Nurse Ratched has a press release concerning the Virtual March on Washington. Be sure to e-mail the info to your non-blog reading friends. It is a simple way to do something good for people willing to give their all for our country; while waking up the folks in power to the reminder that Patriotism includes caring for the troops, not merely exploiting them.
Did you know that a US Marine of the rank of Private or Corporal , ranks that make up a majority of the Corp, brings home less than 10,000 dollars a year? I knew our service people are not getting rich but this is shameful. If a Marine Corporal is married, or married with kids his pay would have his family ranked as 'poor' by US Census Bureau standards.
5/14/2003
|
Over at Blah3 we see that Mandy Kleinburg who lost her husband Allan on September 11 as he worked at the World Trade Center on the 89th floor is calling for support in getting full disclosure from the White House of materials pertinent to the official 9/11 investigation.
Read Ms Kleinberg's testimony to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. We have spoken of her bravely advocating for the truth in this matter before
Here is contact information for the commision:
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407
info@9-11Commission.gov
TEL: 202-331-4060
FAX: 202-296-5545
Here is the web address of 9/11 Citizens Watch, a group advocating the full investigation of that horrific event and all that surrounds it.
Thanks to The Memory Hole plain people like you and me can access the documents of the Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11- materials that, oddly enough contain information, much of it previously published, that the Bush Administration would like to make retroactively "classified" so as to keep secret.
William Rivers Pitt offers a bit of 9/11 history, a bit of context as to the "why" part of the equation. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States should be free to judiciously look into the circumstances arund the events of 9/11; it will be offering to history the "how" concerning those earth shaking events, events that have come to shape the very foundations of what it is to be American. Think PATRIOT act. Think "pre-emptive attack on the evil forces that perpetrated 9/11" sic. The present regime has used the horror of 9/11 to change the mental and spiritual landscape of America. We need the truth. It will help us to claim our country back.
Call and write. Bush and Company have seemingly slid out from under the pall of their intimate connection to Enron. They have gotten away with an attack on a small poor oil bearing nation thats population consists half of children. They are putting our environment up to the highest bidder and starving our economy with war on the back of tax cuts to the rich.The list goes on.
This inquiry can open peoples eyes to the attitude of money over Patriotism, cash over country- Profits over people.
It might sound dramatic but it is true: We need to have history reflect the truth both to wake people up to the present political reality here in America and to save future generations. Please call. Write. Read and share what you learn; talk to everyone you know. We can source the basis of our concerns to popular media, this is no "conspiracy" subject- let the facts speak. Our world has been profoundly effected. We really can make a difference.
The White House Phone Numbers:
COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Write Mr Bush and Mr Cheney. You know who represents you in Washington.
We can make a difference.
5/14/2003
|
5.13.2003
More Lies from Bush and Company?
Here is a September 11 timeline packed with supportive links. I don't see how the Bush regime and a compliant media can spin this information- if a groundswell of people have some familiarity with it. No weapons of mass destruction? "Well, the Iraqi people are free, damn it", is what I have heard some intelligent and caring people say, echoing the facile 'company line' we are being fed one sound byte at a time. How will Mr Rove and team spin the massacre of thousands of innocent Americans on Bush's watch?There will be no Republican spin cycle necessary if any talk about this pivotal and tragic event is consigned to the conveniant "Conspiracy" dustbin. If we can engage our fellows in fact based dialogue about this maybe we can expose the man behind the Teflon Corporate Curtain for what he is- and what his handlers and hangers-on are. But we need to get our concerns on the radar, so to speak.
My initial big question about FAA procedure not being followed is fleshed out here very well. So is the divergent treatment of Mr Bush and Mr Cheney... The time line is very well authenticated by footnotes to major media. Much like yesterday's posting, today's I see illuminating a historical topography that shifts here and there much to the official tellers convenience. It would be good to know why how it is that so many Americans died, wouldn't it?
Let me know what you think. Send along suggestions on how we can get this issue on the table. The Center for Cooperative Research link is truly dense with resources, for comparison and verification - much food for thought. Pass it around.
5/13/2003
|
5.12.2003
WASHINGTON - Gov. George Bush said he backs a state's right to decide whether to allow medical use of marijuana, a position that puts him sharply at odds with Republicans on Capitol Hill. "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," the governor said recently in Seattle in response to a reporter's question.
Chuck Thomas, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a medical marijuana lobbying group, praised Mr. Bush as "courageous" and "consistent on states' rights. I would hope he would be an example for Republicans in Congress."
Aides said Mr. Bush does not support legalizing marijuana for medical use. But his position supporting state self-determination opens the door to medical marijuana use in some places. President Clinton and most Republican lawmakers, by contrast, oppose all state medical marijuana legalization laws, saying they could lead to abuse.
States Rights are a big GOP issue, I thought.
President-elect George W. Bush hosted 18 Republican governors at his ranch Saturday, thanked them for their support, and pledged to make education and respect for states' rights priorities in his administration.
Shouldn't Mr Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft be consistant?
Attorney General Ashcroft is nonetheless an easy target. He heads the Justice Department of an Administration that claims to value the sovereignty of states as well as the states' ability to embrace priorities that are distinct from those of the national government. In fact, the man who selected Ashcroft would not be in office were it not for an electoral approach that subordinates the will of the majority of the populace to the will of a group that more closely approximates the wishes of the states.(italics mine)
When Ashcroft and the Bush Administration do not like what the states are doing, however, then their skepticism about federal supremacy seems to undergo a transformation. If California believes in medical marijuana, then California must be beaten into submission. Even if one does not accept the notion of a state's "right," one can still point a finger at those who do and who nonetheless go ahead and violate that putative right.
The quote above came from an article by Sherry F.Colb on FindLaw's Legal Commentary. A really thoughtful read.
I'm hoping that you are familiar with the case of Ed Rosenthal (please give that link a look). Here is a transcript of Ed and Stone Phillips on Dateline, a tv show on NBC that will offer you some background. As will this current article. Bottom line: Mr Rosenthal, propagated and grew cannabis plants for distribution to sick people while acting as an agent of the city of Oakland California , as was legalized at the state level by proposition 215; he was arrested, charged and tried and the jury never was made aware of his legal status.
Mr. Rosenthal, who raised marijuana in an Oakland warehouse, was acting within state and local law. California's Proposition 215, which voters approved in a 1996 referendum, permits marijuana use by seriously ill people. In addition, Oakland has its own medical marijuana law, and Mr. Rosenthal was acting as an officer of the city. Nevertheless, the judge refused to allow the defense to mention any of this at his trial, since it is not a valid defense against federal drug charges.
A new find, Bully magazine had a good piece on the Rosenthal case as well.
The Wo/Mens Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz California are, in concert with the City and County of Santa Cruz sueing DEA agents individually as well as the Federal government.
These cases highlight the weight of Constitutional and states rights arguments that will be brought to bear.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has some interesting thoughts on our Constitution and the Rights it affords we citizens:Scalia said the more irresponsible and violent a society becomes, the more citizens' freedoms will be restricted. He said that U.S. citizens tend to interpret the Constitution as giving them more power than the document provides. I will enforce the constitutional minimums,'' Scalia said. But they are minimums. You've got to realize that.''
PATRIOTWATCHERS remember Scalia made almost the exact same statement last month:
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia underscored that point in a March 18 speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "The Constitution just sets minimums," he said, according to the Associated Press. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
You'll have to scroll down to that May 12 posting at Patriotwatch.
So we have Scalia wanting us to have a minimum of Constitutionally protected rights. Rick Santorum proudly stating :Mr. Santorum, who did not speak in public today, has refused to apologize and said that his remarks were more directed at the right to privacy rather than homosexuality. He said his position was shared by a majority of the Supreme Court in upholding a Georgia antisodomy law in 1986.
How do other Republicans weigh in on privacy?
"For the past two years - two years! - two of President Bush's judicial nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have been maligned and smeared by Senate Democrats who have ignored their superb and celebrated legal careers.
The reason? Neither nominee has endorsed the ambiguous "right to privacy" that abortion supporters declare is to be found in the U.S. Constitution."
I got that from Seeing the Forest too, just a different days posting. He also speaks of a Joe Conason piece that mentions judicial nominee Kuhn as having the same frightening attitude. An attitude that is far flung in the Republican party as well as in its Republican applications:
...is that it allows for a blanket drug test of anyone involved in any extracurricular program, even the debate team, followed up by random tests throughout the school year. The Bush administration's solicitor general, Ted Olsen, even contended that the government would be in favor of mandatory tests of entire student bodies.
O.K, so I start talking about The present White House administration and marijuana and tie the entry up with a member of the Bush administration and piss tests. Sort of circular. Pretty cool, eh?
But there's more.
Let's just get with Mr Ashcroft for just a moment. Mr Ashcroft will send our Constitutional rights down the road straightaway, no questions asked; we're talking the PATRIOT act here folks... well, if it's gun rights that might be a bit of a different story. Remember 9/11, the "inspiration" or at least the excuse given (please read link) for the PATRIOT act? Well Mr Ashcroft, the guy who spent 8000 dollars to cover up the exposed breast of the Spirit of Justice also used his power to cover any terrorist/gun buyer connections:
In the effort to root out terrorists, it seems the Justice Department may roll over any part of the Bill of Rights except the Second Amendment. Even during intense questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft unapologetically refused to support giving the FBI access to the background checks. The display gave us a true picture of our attorney general and his willingness to sacrifice potentially important intelligence on terrorists rather than offend the National Rifle Association.
But he would stand by at least 1200 folks right to privacy when they were picked up in post 9/11 sweeps; a right to privacy that kept their families- and lawyers -in the dark about their whereabouts.
Mr Ashcroft effectively canned the Freedom Of Information Request procedure that makes our Democracy a bit more transparent:First, the administration scuttled the Freedom of Information Act. On Oct. 12, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo to all federal agencies urging them to resist new FOIA requests. When investigative journalists and watchdog groups request public records that might implicate government officials, they may discover that their applications are indefinitely stonewalled.
Then the administration tried to overturn the Presidential Records Act, which allows public access to all presidential papers. On Nov. 1, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order that gave himself the power to seal all presidential records since 1980. Although historians and journalists are fighting Bush's order in federal court, it may take years before the judiciary strikes down this executive violation of congressional legislation.
Ever since the Watergate scandal, the Freedom of Information and Presidential Records acts have allowed us to hold our government accountable. Even though classified documents are never released to the public, the Bush administration is now using the war on terrorism as a pretext for preventing disclosure of all public records
Yup, the last part of the quote wasn't pertinent to what we have been talking about- but it is pertinent to the preservation of Democracy. How many of us hear about such underhanded actions? Bush and company lied to us about Iraq and it's WOMD program, it's involvement in 9/11 was only insinuated , thats' no lie. But will Mr Bush and his White House lie about the circumstances of 9/11 to save their collective carreers, asses, administration? Senator Graham thinks so.
You get the sense of what I want to point out. It's late and I'm getting far afield. When you put the present regimes actions and words together there is a lack of consistancy. Their words tend to fit the situation and serve only their aims, merely giving lipservice to truth. They speak to power and control. We need to listen well and talk with others to preserve our freedoms. Freedom is something claimed, not granted. There is nothing passive about being free.
5/12/2003
|
5.11.2003
Turned a bunch of soil, planted potatoes and onions today. Can't really think straight or put words together I'm so beat.
Peace
5/11/2003
|
Found a really hot blog- give Hegemoney a read (no, I didn't misspell a Gramsci term) Just another reason I'm proud to be a blogger; and glad I have a blogroll.
5/11/2003
|
|
|
