Marc,


I'll let my comments stand, hyperbole and all. There is nothing warm and comforting about knowing that your cable guy or the electic company meter reader is actively "keeping and eye on you", even if you have nothing to hide.


But it's the removal of the posse comitatis restriction that bothers me the most. We <u>DO NOT</u> need the Army actively engaged in law enforcement or "crowd control". If, for some extremely unlikely reason, a brief period of martial law is required, that's a much better alternative than lifting the restriction completely.


And if that's not obvious to you and the other conservatives on this board, then the conservative claim to "getting the governement off our backs" is even a greater pile of horsesh*t than I thought.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-18 15:13 ]</font>

On 2002-07-18 14:57, David '47 wrote:
(lots of stuff) ...if the Taliban government had been a declared enemy... (lots more)

I have little to disagree with here. Even if Congress had declared war using the old traditional terminology instead of the following the post-WWII tradition, this would not have effected the Walker case much.

From what I have read recently, Walker claims that he wanted to leave the Taliban as soon as he heard about 9/11, but says he never had an opportunity to do so safely. It would be hard for the government to disprove this interpretation. It would have been no less difficult no matter how Congress worded the act of 9/15/2001.

I wasn't aware of this until the last few days, but it's a key point in Walker's case: the Taliban itself (as opposed to Al Qaeda) was declared a terrorist organization by an executive order of Pres. Clinton years before 9/11.

Thus, Walker has been convicted of the felony of being a member of an terrorist organization, and of carrying explosives while committing said felony.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but I'm not too surprised or upset by the plea bargain. It's not like Walker was a big wheel in the Taliban, and if hating America was a crime, we'd have to build a lot more prisons.

My main point is the declaration of war is not a liberal/conservative thing. And al qaeda was being sheltered and supported by the Taliban government. Al qaeda had declared war on the US in 1998. The Taliban gave them shelter and supported their war, that makes them allies. Although it would be hard to declare war (and prosecute such a war) against al qaeda by itslef, doing so agianst the Taliban would not be so difficult and indeed we did wage de facto war agianst them. Although I mentioned Lindh, he is not the main issue. I was thinking more along the ideas of terrorists we apprehend here in the U.S. With a formal state of war they are spies and can be dispatched forthwith.

There is a huge difference between terrorists and enemy soldiers. Terrorists are criminals and are dealth with through the criminal justice system. Unless they can be convicted of a crime the state cannot move against them.

Enemy soldiers can be detained simply by existing. Consider the al qaeda members we have interned. What is their legal status? With a declaration of wat they are POWs and can be interned for the duration, without trial, which could be for the rest of their lives.

Although this is semantics, sematics matter a great deal, especially in diplomacy. By elevating the 911 attack from a crime to a formal act of war, we raise the stakes and assert whether or not we are serious about this so-called war on terrorism. Since we did not delcare war, we let bin Laden get away, and we are studiously ignoring Saudi Arabia's role in this, it would appear that the Bush administration isn't serious. In other words, bin Laden gambled that he could blow up a New York skyscraper and get away with it. He was right.

The reason this bothers me is I had always thought that if the US was attacked by a WMD the response would be strong and decisive and that nobody would want to go there. I was wrong, and so now I fear another such attack is simply a matter of time.

On 2002-07-18 15:53, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
Since we did not delcare war, we let bin Laden get away

I don't see how words on paper would have made any difference to what happened with Bin Laden. We "declared war" in WWII, and some people think Hitler got away, too.

According to Al Qaeda, we did WOUND the m*th*rf**k*r. Not that I trust them to tell the truth, but if they were going to lie, wouldn't they say he was completely unscathed? He very well could be dead. We may never know.

I do appreciate your alternative viewpoint concerning the U.S. response to 9/11. So often people say we overreacted, but you are saying we underreacted. Very interesting.

TIMLP

Treason is probably the most difficult crime in which to gain a conviction in a U.S. court of law. Think about it, folks: The very authors of the Constitution had been, at one time, guilty of this crime. They well understood the nature of this crime, and the critical relationship it has in defining the role of limited government over concentrated, centralized authority (ie., Monarchy).

Hence the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That very Amendment makes treason nearly lawful, itself. But it is the First Amendment that was assaulted by Congress when they passed Campaign Finance Reform.

But as addressed by nearly every liberal posting in these threads, the issue isn't about limiting free speech, but rather limiting money in elections. They place the two issues upon the scales... money trumps the First Amendment. Money keeps the little guy out of the process, they say. So if we have to limit the rich guy's First Amendment rights, so be it! We're for the little guy.

Makes em' feel real good, the liberals, to think like this...

But where's the clause in the Constitution that makes any such distinction between rich and poor? Was that something that the authors forgot to put in? How about the smart and the stupid? The ambitious and the lazy?

How come liberals can so easily ditch the First Amendment, the very source of our vitality as a nation, the very epitome of everything Osama bin Laden--and the rest of the world, that hate us--are not, in order to get one over the rich guy?

I just don't understand this.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-18 18:53 ]</font>

This news has suprised me, because here in Australia people feel very hopeful about the economy. You people in North America seem to be in a totally different social mood.


Bush takes beating on business links
By Richard Stevenson and Janet Elder in New York

July 19 2002


Americans worry that the Administration is too heavily influenced by big business, fear that President George Bush is hiding something about his own corporate past, and judge the economy to be in its worst shape since 1994, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows.

The survey suggests that the unfolding revelations about corporate misconduct and inflated earnings hold considerable peril for the White House and Mr Bush's party in this congressional election year.

By a margin of more than two to one, people said the Administration was more interested in protecting the interests of large corporations than those of ordinary Americans. That concern was expressed by more than a third of Republicans and an overwhelming majority of Democrats.

The nationwide telephone poll of 1000 adults was conducted between Saturday and Tuesday. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Two-thirds of all respondents, and slightly more than half of Republicans, said business had too much influence on the Republican Party. Just under half of all the people polled said business exerted too much influence over the Democrats. Many Americans also expressed concerns that Mr Bush and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, have not been forthcoming enough about their past business dealings.


The poll found a surge since the beginning of the year in the percentage of people who think the country is on the wrong track. It also found that Americans' trust in government, which had risen sharply after September 11, has declined significantly.

Mr Bush's approval rating stands at 70per cent, continuing a steady decline from its peak of 89per cent after September11, but still impressive.

Asked whether Mr Bush was telling the truth about his dealings at Harken Energy, the oil company where he was a director and consultant from 1986 to 1993, 48per cent of respondents said they believed he was hiding something; a further 9per cent said they thought he was mostly lying. Seventeen per cent said they believed he was telling the whole truth.

Yet when asked whether they thought Mr Bush had acted honestly and ethically in his business practices while in the corporate world, 43per cent said yes and 21per cent said no.

Mr Cheney's role as chief executive of Halliburton, whose accounting practices during his tenure are being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, drew similarly suspicious responses. Asked specifically whether they thought Mr Cheney had done anything unethical while running Halliburton, 23per cent said yes and 32per cent said no.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said the poll was evidence "of a nation that continues to strongly approve of the job the President is doing and a nation that knows the President is honest and ethical and shares the nation's moral values".

Asked to rate the state of the economy, 49per cent said very good or fairly good, and 49per cent said fairly bad or very bad. It was the most pessimistic assessment since early 1994.

I don't know if one can declare "war" on a terrorist organization. Seems like they are criminals to me.

However, we COULD have declared war on the Taliban as the rulers of a nation, Afghanistan. We decided we needed to invade and overthrow them in order to achieve our aim of getting bin Laden and stopping Al Qaida, because they were protecting and harboring them. Therefore, Taliban soldiers would have been POWs.

By invoking "war powers," perhaps that sufficed as producing a state of war. But that's debateable. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The war powers act gives the president the power to dispatch troops temporarily. Not quite the same thing. And anyway, the act is not being observed, or they would be home by now.

But would Al Qaida terrorists be POWs with no war declared, except against the Taliban? Only if fighting in the Taliban army I think. Otherwise, they are criminal suspects and should be treated with due process, much as we don't like them.

X'r
as Montgomery Burns would say,
"EXcellent"

Max

Justin,
If I could revive a long dead discussion.

Why is it appropriate to separate self-inflicted abuse from drugs, from "second hand" victimhood? Are not both legitimate?

Your Mother.

marc lamb: "p.s. No, I don't know what "splitting" is. Please enlighten me.

posy: Marc. I think I like you. Your response to my dig was pleasant and open. Very 4T! Xer of Evil explained, and s/he was right.

I like Marc too. I'd date him but, my husband wouldn't like it. I don't think his wife would either :lol:

Xer of Evil: "The psychological term "splitting" refers to people who see others as either "all good" or "all bad." These people are unable to recognize that there may be both desirable and undesirable qualities present in the same person. This mindset prevents them from seeing others as they really are, because they have already been labeled in the mind of that person"

posy: Xer, I don't know if I agree with you politically, but I think I love you. You speak my language. An unexpected surprise. I was being 3T nasty with Marc. I am ashamed. Sigh... But I am only "good/bad human"..
P.S. Xer of Evil... that is a very splitting kind of name... what is the deal? Speak to me. (Gawd I hope you are not a repubican!!)

David '47:

Excellent posts. There are Republican and administration operatives as well as radio commentators who daily reinforce the point to Kool-Aid drinkers that they are not to listen to a word that anyone says if that anyone identifies himself as a "liberal." But here on this topic, David, a self-styled liberal, is voicing precisely the same views and concerns held passionately by those on the Right up until the 2000 election! Now, of course, "everything has changed" on the Right and those folks now support in this Bush administration virtually everything they formerly opposed...while still claiming to hold their original views. Whatever. But as someone on the Right who ignores propagandists and does not drink Kool-Aid, I'd like to thank you for everything that you as a liberal have stated in this recent exchange. And this is an example of why I like this place so much.

Your reference to Posse Comitatus reminded me of Thomas J. Di Lorenzo's The Real Lincoln which I finally managed to get a hold of. I am still in the very early chapters but I suspect that DiLorenzo will offer some compelling, well documented arguments. He sets about to get past the fogbank of praise and worship which has always surrounded Lincoln, naturally created by the victors as is done in any war, and to get at the truth as revealed by Lincoln and his associates over the course of his life. Put simply, Lincoln was not an abolitionist and did not fight that war to free any slaves (which is fairly well understood). Rather, he specifically set about to consolidate federal power so as to impose Clay's (Lincoln's lifelong hero) American System (and this is not at all understood as Lincoln's primary and single-minded objective). Where the Hamiltonians repreatedly failed through the first saeculum to impose their system of "protectionism, government control of the money supply through a nationalized banking system, and government subsidies for railroad, shipping, and canal-building businesses ("internal improvements")" [DiLorenzo, p. 54], those Hamiltonians succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in the second saeculum thanks to Lincoln's ruthless efforts through war, etc. to bring it about. Thanks to Lincoln, we now had the same seventeenth and eighteenth century mercantilism which our ancestors in large numbers fled Europe to escape. And DiLorenzo goes so far as to state that Eisenhower only acknowledged the existence of the Military-Industrial Complex a good ninety years after Lincoln had brought it into being.

It occurs to me that we may be seeing in this Bush administration the Lincoln administration all over again (and, no, this does not necessarily make Bush the Gray Champion). Where Lincoln set about to impose mercantilism nationwide through the federal government, this Bush administration is vigorously attempting to expand the sphere of mercantilist control to encompass the whole globe. In this light, it is no surprise that the Bush administration is pushing for the repeal of the same Posse Comitatus which was created in response to Lincoln's (and Republicans') abuses. And Lincoln's actions might be a further guide to what we may expect to see from the Bush administration. For these reasons, I encourage anybody to read DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln with an eye toward comparing Lincoln's true ideals and actions (again hidden in the fogbank) to those of this present Bush administration.

On 2002-07-18 23:49, justmom wrote:
Justin,
If I could revive a long dead discussion.

Why is it appropriate to separate self-inflicted abuse from drugs, from "second hand" victimhood? Are not both legitimate?

Your Mother.

mom,



It's way too crowded in here. I moved this thread over to the Culture & Values area.

On 2002-07-19 02:16, Stonewall Patton wrote:
David '47:

Excellent posts. There are Republican and administration operatives as well as radio commentators who daily reinforce the point to Kool-Aid drinkers... blah blah blah...

I wrote...
"p.s. Good to see you finally come out of the Gestapo closet, Dave. Stonewall Goebbels will no doubt enjoy the company." :smile:


Well, that was a no-brainer... :grin:


Gosh, I was complimented by a liberal... I must be losing my touch. :smile:

Just thought I's add this to all the talk about "liberals". Published in Globalization:

Liberalism and Globalization
By Jean-Pierre Lehmann | July 19, 2002

There is a lot of talk these days about ?neo-liberalism? ? most of it critical. But all across the globe, liberalism as such is perhaps the most important feature of successful societies. Jean-Pierre Lehman, Professor of Political Economy at the IMD, a leading business school located in Lausanne, Switzerland, argues the case.

Let?s face it. No matter where you live, all societies carry baggage ? and a considerable amount of it. But, in a nutshell, what distinguishes successful societies from those that are not is that dynamic societies are the ones that know what to abandon ? and when.


China, for example, is essentially a Confucianist culture. Confucianism is an ideological system that places education at a very high level of priority. But it is also a system which strongly discriminates against women.



Getting rid of baggage

Contemporary Chinese societies have continued to carry the emphasis on education ? but they have smartly discarded the traditional discrimination against women baggage.


Rest assured, if China were still binding its women?s feet, there would be no spectacular economic growth in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan.


The fact that China no longer binds women?s feet may make the Chinese feel less ?Chinese?. But it lets China move ahead economically, politically ? and socially.



A dynamic force

What has allowed the Chinese to make these choices? What allows similar changes to occur in other regions and cultures?

Ultimately, what has transformed cultural legacies into dynamic engines of growth, welfare and prosperity ? in both the material and spiritual domains ? has been the liberating force of liberalism.


Confucianist scholars such as Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, the Hindu scholar Ram Mohun Roy and the numerous Christian liberals and humanists are all from different cultures. But also all share a common goal of sorting out their respective ideological baggage to see what works ? and what doesn?t.



Liberal Arabs

The potential for change is evident even in cultures which are today widely seen as almost a lost cause. Consider the Arab/Muslim world.


Perhaps surprisingly to outsiders, a liberal tradition ? a tradition of sorting through the cultural baggage ? does exist in Arabic and Islamic thought.


The Tunisian scholar, the late Albert Hourani, demonstrated this vividly in his magnificent book, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age (1968).



Muslim thought

He described how, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thinkers and writers such as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani developed a powerful stream of Muslim thought along lines comparable to the evolution of secular and liberal thought in Europe.


And, surprising as that may sound, Al-Afghani?s agenda of reform and liberalism did not prevent him from being a fervent nationalist and anti-imperialist.



An easy way to avoid change

Ultimately, however, as Hourani?s book shows, liberalism came to be aborted in most of the Middle East. How so? Well, opponents of liberalism in the Islamic world opted for an easy, but effective, move.


They equated liberalism with ?westernism?. And that allowed them to dictate that all that old baggage ? whether effective or not ? be retained. Had the equivalent happened in China, the Chinese would still be binding women?s feet ?


In fact, we would all do well to remember that the West?s ideological origins are not at all liberal ? even though it is correct that liberalism has emanated primarily from the West.



Galileo to Darwin

After all, dogmatic literal interpretations of the Bible allowed the Florentine government to place Galileo under house arrest ? for saying that the earth turned around the sun.


Even today, fundamentalist Christians in the United States appear not prepared to give up the fight when they seek to ban the teaching of Darwinism in schools, for example.



Japan switched off

Now I do realize that intellectual curiosity and cultural openness are not permanent features of any society. Take Japan. In the 1960s, the country was a hothouse of cultural curiosity, openness, import and experimentation.


For whatever reason, in the course of the 1980s, Japan switched off. It has become far, far more inward-looking.


In fact it has strangely turned into a somewhat masochistically narcissistic society, which ? despite its great potential ? goes a long way to explain its present social and economic decline.



Universal liberalism

All of that is why I am convinced that liberalism is a universal doctrine, the most basic premise of which is to oppose dogmatism in any form. Hence its advocacy of tolerance, openness and pluralism. And hence its attraction across many cultures.


So the next time you hear criticisms of ?neo-liberalism,? keep in mind the huge value of the underlying premise in that concept on a broader scale.


Whatever is bothersome about the ?neo? part, liberalism as such appears to be nothing less than the key to allowing a society to operate successfully in the modern, globalized world. That is a blessing, not a curse.

Actually, according to a book I've read on Japanese history, it is perfectly normal for Japan to alternate between periods of openness to outside cultural influences, and periods of hostility against such influences. Example: during the 16th c., Japan was very much open to outside influences, especially in the area of Western military technology (they were in a state of chronic civil war during most of that century). However, the Tokugawa Shoguns who came to power early in the 17th c. slammed the door shut on all outside contact - and kept it shut for over 200 years. Once the Tokugawas were overthrown, in 1868, Japan once more opened up, and imported everything it needed to in order to industrialize itself within a generation. I personally suspect that had Japan won in the Pacific, it might have once more shut out the rest of the world beyond the limits of it's 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' Empire. It was already moving in that direction, along with trying to conquer everything in sight - probably in order to make slamming the door shut a viable move for an industrial nation. Instead, however, defeat in 1945 forced the door open again. This brings us to the point mentioned in posy's post, where he describes Japan as 'closing' up again in our own time.

A conservative church pastor lets the Bush administration have it:


http://www.toogoodreports.com/column...020721-fss.htm

(For educ. and discussion purposes only)


It should be obvious to everyone by now that, wittingly or not, George W. Bush is in the process of creating a communist-style form of government in the United States. As details emerge regarding his new Department of Homeland Security, we discover that Bush and his band of belligerent brothers have begun the process of turning the federal government into a gargantuan police state not seen since Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Soviet Union.

According to press reports, Bush plans to do the following:

1. Merge 22 federal police and emergency agencies into his new Department of Homeland Security. (Say hello to the new SS Corps.)

2. Create standardized biometric travel documents ("Show me your papers or your iris. Sieg Heil.")

3. Develop "screening tools to predict human behavior, such as 'hostile intent.'" (Hello Dept. of Pre-Crimes.)

4. Allow federal police to search and seize at will. (Goodbye 4th Amendment.)

5. Allow federal police to incarcerate and indefinitely hold suspects without arrest or warrant and with no legal recourse by the person seized. (Goodbye 5th Amendment. Hello Gestapo.)

6. Implement a national driver's license. (Hello National ID.)

7. Allow the U.S. military to conduct lethal operations on U.S. soil. (Goodbye Posse Comitatus.)

8. Allow the President to unilaterally procure taxpayer dollars without the consent of Congress. (Goodbye U.S. Constitution.)

9. Allow the federal government to act in secret. (Hello East German Secret Police, Stasi. Goodbye Freedom of Information Act.)

10. Create a "Domestic Informant" program whereby millions of Americans are authorized to spy on their fellow citizens on behalf of the federal government. (Hello Communist Amerika.)

According to the Sydney Morning Herald and other news outlets, Bush plans to enlist 1 in 24 Americans into a new citizen-spy department. This number dwarfs the number of citizen spies used by former East-Bloc countries.

The Justice Department is scheduled to launch a pilot program next month in 10 cities using 1 million informants. The SMH rightly stated, "Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic states." It would seem that a "non- democratic" state is exactly what Bush is creating.

In Nazi Germany, churches, pastors, and conservatives assisted the creation of tyrannical government. That is exactly what is happening right now in the United States. What we thought we needed to fear from liberals, we find being championed by conservatives.

Right now, George Bush and his fellow travelers compose the greatest threat to freedom and constitutional government that exists. Instead of fighting terrorism, they are actually destroying the very principles of liberty that they claim to be protecting.

America survived the attacks on September 11. It may not survive the Bush administration.


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-19 11:41 ]</font>

Here is a nice run-down of what the Bush administration has wrought. Remember, this is what the Right feared that the Left would do all these decades. But apparently it is perfectly all right when their guy does it...so long as it is perceived that he keeps his unit in his pants.


http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/di...-doorstep.html

(For educ. and discussion purposes only)


DICTATORSHIP AT YOUR DOORSTEP

Why "Anti-Terrorism" Laws Threaten You

by James R. Elwood & Jarret B. Wollstein
May 2002

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in NewsMax.com 2/1/02)

At 5 am in the morning on September 12, 2001 -- less than one day after the 9/11 Attack -- a half-dozen heavily-armed federal agents raided the home of Dr. Al-Hazmi in San Antonio, Texas. Without any search warrant, the agents ransacked his home, while his wife and young children (6 & 8) were held at gunpoint. Then -- without being charged with any crime -- Dr. Al-Hazmi was shackled and thrown naked into a freezing cold FBI holding cell. Even his eyeglasses and bronchitis medicine were taken away. Next, Al-Hazmi was flown to a New York prison, where he says he was repeatedly beaten while the FBI interrogated him.

One week later, he was finally allowed to talk to an attorney and learned the reason for his arrest: Dr. Al-Hazmi's name (the "Smith" of the Middle East) is similar to that of two 9/11 hijackers, and he had booked flights through Travelocity.com, which some 9/11 hijackers (along with a few million other people) had used.

On September 24th -- 12 days after he was arrested,Dr. Al-Hazmi was released -- without his belongings and without even an apology from the FBI. He says he may now have to quit his job and leave the U.S. because hisco-workers no longer trust him. (Source: "Justice Kept In the Dark," Newsweek,12-10-01, p. 41.)

Since September 11th, over 2,000 people, including many U.S. citizens, have been imprisoned by the FBI and police in the name of "fighting terrorism." Only two of them have been charged with a crime associated with 9/11. Many say they have been denied food and sleep, access to an attorney, and have even been beaten. The FBI has even called for legalizing torture of such "suspects."

In the wake of the horrific 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, America is a changed country. Dozens of "anti-terrorist" laws have already been enacted by Congress and state legislatures, and many more are on the way. As you are about to learn, these laws are a much greater danger to you than to terrorists.

The USA Patriot Act authorizes
an American police state

The centerpiece of the new "anti-terror" laws is the USA PATRIOT ACT (Public Law 107-56). Here is how this law affects you.

Cops can now rob your house or office at will: Under Section 213, police can now secretly break into your home or business if they merely suspect you're involved in any criminal activity involving a computer.

Once they break in, they can seize your records, alter or destroy your computer files, and even plant bugs that report every keystroke you type. They can also secretly seize anything and everything you own, including family heirlooms, your computer, cash, jewelry, and gold. Since the "search" is secret, it will be impossible to legally challenge it -- much less get your property back.

In effect, the USA Patriot Act legalizes home break-ins and robberies by cops nationwide -- not unlike the corrupt LA police Rampart Division which routinely robbed and assaulted citizens they were sworn "to serve and protect."

Big Brother is Watching: Under Section 207(III) the Feds can now eavesdrop on your phone calls, faxes, and e-mail at will -- without any search warrant. Internet Service Providers must turn over your e-mail records and customer information upon government demand. Telephone companies also must turn over detailed phone records, including any credit-card or bank-account numbers used for payments.

According to CBSNews.com (11/21/01), the FBI is developing new "Magic Lantern" software that can record every keystroke you make on your computer. It could be inserted into your PC via the Internet, and may even be capable of real-time monitoring! [Shades of 1984]

Your financial privacy is being wiped out. Section 358 compels U.S. and foreign banks -- along with stockbrokers, credit-card companies, and credit-reporting agencies -- to provide detailed information about you to intelligence agencies on demand. You won't even be notified that this information has been requested.

Section 361 greatly expands the power of the IRS Financial Crimes Center (FINCEN) to collect financial information on you from "non-bank networks" (like check-cashing services and barter-systems). This infor-mation will be entered into a new federal database accessible to thousands of cops and bureaucrats, who can use the information to criminally prosecute you or seize your assets. The IRS has already forced MasterCard and American Express to turn over all records of millions of U.S. citizens who have foreign credit cards.

If you are a foreigner who owns U.S. assets, they can be seized upon the mere request of a U.S. prosecutor.

Finally, carrying $10,000 cash in or out of the US (without reporting it) is by itself now considered a federal crime. Your cash will be immediately confiscated.

Anything and everything you own can be seized without trial. Section 302 allows "forfeiture of any assets in connection with the anti-terrorist efforts of the United States." If you contribute even $1 to an organization that the President brands "terrorist," everything you own can be confiscated.

Since September 11th, over $400 million in assets has been seized, including all of the assets of the Global Relief Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois, which raises some $5 million a year for poor Muslims. According to CBS News, FBI agents removed "furniture and fixtures as well as records." Justice Department officials say they will also go after large contributors to Global and 39 other Muslim charities.

We are all possible "domestic terrorists"

Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act says "domestic terrorism" includes any illegal acts which are "dangerous to human life" or which are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

This wording is so vague, that police could brand you a 'supporter of terrorism' simply for protesting an unjust law, taking part in a political demonstration where a fist-fight breaks out, or even writing an article that criticizes the War on Terror! Already, similar laws have been used to arrest protesters at anti-abortion demonstration, seize the assets of some defense attorneys, and even arrest 6-year- old children for making "terrorist threats."

Section 813 further states that such "terrorist acts" fall under RICO (the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act), which allows police to confiscate everything you own based upon mere "suspicion."

The USA Patriot Act is just the beginning

In the wake of 9/11, scores of new anti-terrorist laws and policies have already been enacted including:

Robbing and assaulting airline passengers. Airports (and many other public places) are now "rights-free zones." Under the eye of armed soldiers, thousands of airline passengers have had legal items like toenail clippers, jewelry, and belts confiscated as potential "weapons." Many are also being molested.

Columnist Rebecca Hagelin reports that a female airport security guard "ran her hands across my breast and up my thighs." Then her 9-year-old daughter was subjected to the same treatment. WorldNetDaily.com publisher Joseph Farah says his 15-year-old daughter was "told to unbutton her pants and roll them down below the beltline." In Atlanta, 72 women have filed suit for sexual molestation by male airport security screeners.

National ID cards and internal passports.The "Drivers License Modernization Act of 2002" (HR 4633) mandates that all state drivers licenses be standardized "smart cards" that would include your Social Security number, digitized photo, and "biometric" identifiers such as your fingerprints or retinal scan. This won't stop criminals or terrorists, who routinely steal or forge IDs.

However, your license will be linked to a national database now being created which will enable the government to control your every movement and track every dollar you spend.

Some officials are even calling for these ID cards to be mandatory for boarding a bus, train, or cruise ship -- or even to rent a car! That would transform your driver's license into an internal passport. Just like in the former Soviet Union, government bureaucrats could prevent you from traveling!

"Star chamber" military tribunals. These tribunals strip away your most basic legal protections. Before these tribunals, you have no presumption of innocence, hearsay evidence can be used to convict you, and there is no independent jury. Instead you are judged by military officers who work for the same boss as the prosecutors trying to convict you. Military tribunals can even order that you be summarily executed -- without appeal.

So far, these military tribunals are supposed to try only foreign "terrorist" suspects. But a Presidential Executive Order could make you subject to them in a heartbeat -- just as Lincoln ordered during the Civil War.

Dictatorship is at our doorstep

Universal surveillance, arbitrary property seizures, imprisonment without trial, "kangaroo-court" tribunals, and summary execution of "suspects" were the hallmarks of the brutal dictatorships in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia -- and continue today in repressive countries like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. These abuses have no place in a free and civilized society.

But now in America, the USA Patriot Act and the other new anti-terror laws and edicts virtually wipe out our Bill of Rights and give government officials absolute power over your life and property. As Lord Acton warned: "Power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

We can still stop dictatorship

Certainly in the wake of 9/11 and the continuing terrorist threat, government should hunt down and get rid of real terrorists. But vicious attacks on our freedom and privacy will not make our country one whit safer.

There is still time to fight back, as many people -- including some members of Congress -- are starting to do. Join us in insisting as a free and just people, that the "rule of law" enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- which protects the innocent -- must be strictly upheld, and that the new "anti-terrorist" laws be repealed.

Allowing government to destroy our liberty in the name of fighting terrorism will destroy everything that has made America a great, prosperous and decent society -- and give Osama bin Laden and his wretched ilk their final victory.


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-19 11:50 ]</font>

On 2002-07-19 11:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Here is a nice run-down of what the Bush administration has wrought. Remember, this is what the Right feared that the Left would do all these decades. But apparently it is perfectly all right when their guy does it...so long as it is perceived that he keeps his unit in his pants.


http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/di...-doorstep.html

(For educ. and discussion purposes only)


DICTATORSHIP AT YOUR DOORSTEP

Why "Anti-Terrorism" Laws Threaten You

by James R. Elwood & Jarret B. Wollstein
May 2002

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in NewsMax.com 2/1/02)

At 5 am in the morning on September 12, 2001 -- less than one day after the 9/11 Attack -- a half-dozen heavily-armed federal agents raided the home of Dr. Al-Hazmi in San Antonio, Texas. Without any search warrant, the agents ransacked his home, while his wife and young children (6 & were held at gunpoint. Then -- without being charged with any crime -- Dr. Al-Hazmi was shackled and thrown naked into a freezing cold FBI holding cell. Even his eyeglasses and bronchitis medicine were taken away. Next, Al-Hazmi was flown to a New York prison, where he says he was repeatedly beaten while the FBI interrogated him.

One week later, he was finally allowed to talk to an attorney and learned the reason for his arrest: Dr. Al-Hazmi's name (the "Smith" of the Middle East) is similar to that of two 9/11 hijackers, and he had booked flights through Travelocity.com, which some 9/11 hijackers (along with a few million other people) had used.

On September 24th -- 12 days after he was arrested,Dr. Al-Hazmi was released -- without his belongings and without even an apology from the FBI. He says he may now have to quit his job and leave the U.S. because hisco-workers no longer trust him. (Source: "Justice Kept In the Dark," Newsweek,12-10-01, p. 41.)

Since September 11th, over 2,000 people, including many U.S. citizens, have been imprisoned by the FBI and police in the name of "fighting terrorism." Only two of them have been charged with a crime associated with 9/11. Many say they have been denied food and sleep, access to an attorney, and have even been beaten. The FBI has even called for legalizing torture of such "suspects."

In the wake of the horrific 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, America is a changed country. Dozens of "anti-terrorist" laws have already been enacted by Congress and state legislatures, and many more are on the way. As you are about to learn, these laws are a much greater danger to you than to terrorists.

The USA Patriot Act authorizes
an American police state

The centerpiece of the new "anti-terror" laws is the USA PATRIOT ACT (Public Law 107-56). Here is how this law affects you.

Cops can now rob your house or office at will: Under Section 213, police can now secretly break into your home or business if they merely suspect you're involved in any criminal activity involving a computer.

Once they break in, they can seize your records, alter or destroy your computer files, and even plant bugs that report every keystroke you type. They can also secretly seize anything and everything you own, including family heirlooms, your computer, cash, jewelry, and gold. Since the "search" is secret, it will be impossible to legally challenge it -- much less get your property back.

In effect, the USA Patriot Act legalizes home break-ins and robberies by cops nationwide -- not unlike the corrupt LA police Rampart Division which routinely robbed and assaulted citizens they were sworn "to serve and protect."

Big Brother is Watching: Under Section 207(III) the Feds can now eavesdrop on your phone calls, faxes, and e-mail at will -- without any search warrant. Internet Service Providers must turn over your e-mail records and customer information upon government demand. Telephone companies also must turn over detailed phone records, including any credit-card or bank-account numbers used for payments.

According to CBSNews.com (11/21/01), the FBI is developing new "Magic Lantern" software that can record every keystroke you make on your computer. It could be inserted into your PC via the Internet, and may even be capable of real-time monitoring! [Shades of 1984]

Your financial privacy is being wiped out. Section 358 compels U.S. and foreign banks -- along with stockbrokers, credit-card companies, and credit-reporting agencies -- to provide detailed information about you to intelligence agencies on demand. You won't even be notified that this information has been requested.

Section 361 greatly expands the power of the IRS Financial Crimes Center (FINCEN) to collect financial information on you from "non-bank networks" (like check-cashing services and barter-systems). This infor-mation will be entered into a new federal database accessible to thousands of cops and bureaucrats, who can use the information to criminally prosecute you or seize your assets. The IRS has already forced MasterCard and American Express to turn over all records of millions of U.S. citizens who have foreign credit cards.

If you are a foreigner who owns U.S. assets, they can be seized upon the mere request of a U.S. prosecutor.

Finally, carrying $10,000 cash in or out of the US (without reporting it) is by itself now considered a federal crime. Your cash will be immediately confiscated.

Anything and everything you own can be seized without trial. Section 302 allows "forfeiture of any assets in connection with the anti-terrorist efforts of the United States." If you contribute even $1 to an organization that the President brands "terrorist," everything you own can be confiscated.

Since September 11th, over $400 million in assets has been seized, including all of the assets of the Global Relief Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois, which raises some $5 million a year for poor Muslims. According to CBS News, FBI agents removed "furniture and fixtures as well as records." Justice Department officials say they will also go after large contributors to Global and 39 other Muslim charities.

We are all possible "domestic terrorists"

Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act says "domestic terrorism" includes any illegal acts which are "dangerous to human life" or which are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

This wording is so vague, that police could brand you a 'supporter of terrorism' simply for protesting an unjust law, taking part in a political demonstration where a fist-fight breaks out, or even writing an article that criticizes the War on Terror! Already, similar laws have been used to arrest protesters at anti-abortion demonstration, seize the assets of some defense attorneys, and even arrest 6-year- old children for making "terrorist threats."

Section 813 further states that such "terrorist acts" fall under RICO (the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act), which allows police to confiscate everything you own based upon mere "suspicion."

The USA Patriot Act is just the beginning

In the wake of 9/11, scores of new anti-terrorist laws and policies have already been enacted including:

Robbing and assaulting airline passengers. Airports (and many other public places) are now "rights-free zones." Under the eye of armed soldiers, thousands of airline passengers have had legal items like toenail clippers, jewelry, and belts confiscated as potential "weapons." Many are also being molested.

Columnist Rebecca Hagelin reports that a female airport security guard "ran her hands across my breast and up my thighs." Then her 9-year-old daughter was subjected to the same treatment. WorldNetDaily.com publisher Joseph Farah says his 15-year-old daughter was "told to unbutton her pants and roll them down below the beltline." In Atlanta, 72 women have filed suit for sexual molestation by male airport security screeners.

National ID cards and internal passports.The "Drivers License Modernization Act of 2002" (HR 4633) mandates that all state drivers licenses be standardized "smart cards" that would include your Social Security number, digitized photo, and "biometric" identifiers such as your fingerprints or retinal scan. This won't stop criminals or terrorists, who routinely steal or forge IDs.

However, your license will be linked to a national database now being created which will enable the government to control your every movement and track every dollar you spend.

Some officials are even calling for these ID cards to be mandatory for boarding a bus, train, or cruise ship -- or even to rent a car! That would transform your driver's license into an internal passport. Just like in the former Soviet Union, government bureaucrats could prevent you from traveling!

"Star chamber" military tribunals. These tribunals strip away your most basic legal protections. Before these tribunals, you have no presumption of innocence, hearsay evidence can be used to convict you, and there is no independent jury. Instead you are judged by military officers who work for the same boss as the prosecutors trying to convict you. Military tribunals can even order that you be summarily executed -- without appeal.

So far, these military tribunals are supposed to try only foreign "terrorist" suspects. But a Presidential Executive Order could make you subject to them in a heartbeat -- just as Lincoln ordered during the Civil War.

Dictatorship is at our doorstep

Universal surveillance, arbitrary property seizures, imprisonment without trial, "kangaroo-court" tribunals, and summary execution of "suspects" were the hallmarks of the brutal dictatorships in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia -- and continue today in repressive countries like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. These abuses have no place in a free and civilized society.

But now in America, the USA Patriot Act and the other new anti-terror laws and edicts virtually wipe out our Bill of Rights and give government officials absolute power over your life and property. As Lord Acton warned: "Power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

We can still stop dictatorship

Certainly in the wake of 9/11 and the continuing terrorist threat, government should hunt down and get rid of real terrorists. But vicious attacks on our freedom and privacy will not make our country one whit safer.

There is still time to fight back, as many people -- including some members of Congress -- are starting to do. Join us in insisting as a free and just people, that the "rule of law" enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- which protects the innocent -- must be strictly upheld, and that the new "anti-terrorist" laws be repealed.

Allowing government to destroy our liberty in the name of fighting terrorism will destroy everything that has made America a great, prosperous and decent society -- and give Osama bin Laden and his wretched ilk their final victory.


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-19 11:50 ]</font>

Uh...could you repeat that?

On 2002-07-14 18:29, madscientist wrote:
Anyone want to join the secret police?

Only in a 4T could this ever happen.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...185141232.html

ONLY in a 4T? I don't know about that... In the McCarthy Era, the government asked every American to do their patriotic duty by spying on their own neighbors to see if their neighbor might be a Communist. They hoped EVERYONE would be the spy.

Marc said:

This I will predict: CFR will not standup to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. It will be found in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

If the infringments of which you speak [infringements of civil liberties in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism], are challenged as well and found to be in violation then my connection of these two issues will be found as correct.

Without venturing an opinion as to what the Court will do with the current campaign finance law, I have to say that this does not follow logically. The Court rules on many issues. Segregated schools do not violate the same rights as do abortion laws; if the Court in two separate cases finds against both McCain-Feingold and homeland security, these two cases need be no more closely connected than Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.


But still, the linking of the two in Marc's mind is interesting, and serves to point up the real key difference between conservatives and liberals. Consider the following passage from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams:

The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed thro' all time. And in fact the terms of whig and tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution and mind of different individuals. . . . To me then it appears . . . that these will continue thro' all future time: that every one takes his side in favor of the many, or the few, according to his constitution, and the circumstances in which he is placed.

The many, or the few. The privileged, or those who are not. The powerful, or their victims. On behalf of either one, so long as governments exist, the cry of "freedom" may be raised. It may be raised on behalf of the many, against oppression by the few, and against a government that serves the interests of the few. Or it may be raised on behalf of the few, against a government that does not serve their interests, but rather restrains them from exerting oppression against the many.


Since the use of the alleged "right" that is allegedly violated by campaign finance reform is very expensive, it is, as a practical matter, not a general right but a privilege of the wealthy and powerful. I may in legal theory have the right, but it is one I cannot exert because I am not an obscenely wealthy person or the head of a corporation. Moreover, it is used to exert an undemocratic influence on government, skewing its policies to benefit the few against the many. Not only can I not use the right to bribe politicians with massive campaign contributions, but the existence of that right has the effect of undercutting other rights which I could exert, by causing elected officials to pay attention to money when they should be guided solely by votes.


On the other hand, the consolidation of power in the executive branch that should be retained by Congress, the repeal of posse comitatus, and violations of the Fourth Amendment, are offenses not against the privileges of the few, but against the rights of the many. They place their victims in danger, not of losing an undue influence on the government and cherished economic privileges, but of losing freedom itself -- in the bald sense of going to prison, with one's rights as a citizen crudely violated by the government.


To many of us, there is a significant difference between these two, and they really shouldn't be lumped together.


One thing to look for as evidence that we are in a Fourth Turning is when the political tide shifts away from the few -- away from glorying in and romanticizing the rich -- and towards the many, towards recognizing the corruption and perfidy that occurs when the privileged are allowed to run things their own way. The sad thing is that we keep needing reminders of this oft-demonstrated truth, over and over and over again.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2002-07-19 18:13 ]</font>

Ah, Mr. Rush, revisiting the theme: The one and the many, E Pluribus Unum.

Laying aside the fact that Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade were of two entirely different Court (generationally wise) decisions, and my connection of two notions of "personal freedoms" that will be decided by the same (generationally wise) Court, your observation of liberal/conservative differences is well founded.

At least on the surface of things... "Universal liberalism
All of that is why I am convinced that liberalism is a universal doctrine, the most basic premise of which is to oppose dogmatism in any form. Hence its advocacy of tolerance, openness and pluralism. And hence its attraction across many cultures." --
Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Liberalism and Globalization

Therein lies the crux of the matter... the very disingenuous nature of this statement gives one great pause: Dogma? The very statement reeks of it while seeking to rise above it!

Thus it, post-modern liberalism, becomes a great lie, full of wooliness pulled over ones eyes: A fine commerical, heavy laden with idealistic platitudes: "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony...

The "one" and the "many"? How's does awarding $3,000,000,000,000 to a tobacco addict sound? Is this your idea of the slavery of "one" to the "many" or vice versa? Is this Corporatism run amuck, or what?

I re-post for your reconsideration:

Treason is probably the most difficult crime in which to gain a conviction in a U.S. court of law. Think about it, folks: The very authors of the Constitution had been, at one time, guilty of this crime. They well understood the nature of this crime, and the critical relationship it has in defining the role of limited government over concentrated, centralized authority (ie., Monarchy).

Hence the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That very Amendment makes treason nearly lawful, itself. But it is the First Amendment that was assaulted by Congress when they passed Campaign Finance Reform.

But as addressed by nearly every liberal posting in these threads, the issue isn't about limiting free speech, but rather limiting money in elections. They place the two issues upon the scales... money trumps the First Amendment. Money keeps the little guy out of the process, they say. So if we have to limit the rich guy's First Amendment rights, so be it! We're for the little guy.

Makes em' feel real good, the liberals, to think like this...

But where's the clause in the Constitution that makes any such distinction between rich and poor? Was that something that the authors forgot to put in? How about the smart and the stupid? The ambitious and the lazy?

How come liberals can so easily ditch the First Amendment, the very source of our vitality as a nation, the very epitome of everything Osama bin Laden--and the rest of the world, that hate us--are not, in order to get one over the rich guy?

I just don't understand this.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-19 21:13 ]</font>

How ironic it is, that in 1776 a great "Declaration" is sought in search of "independence", while in 1932 a "Great Dictator" is sought in search of dependence?

Marc:

How's does awarding $3,000,000,000,000 to a tobacco addict sound?

Like a questionable method of implementing a sound notion, namely holding corporations accountable for actions that harm the public interest. I'm not sure as to the appropriateness of the means in this case, but the end is good.

[The First] Amendment makes treason nearly lawful, itself.

No, it, and the passage of the Constitution where treason is defined, restricts what shall and what shall not be considered true treason. It says that treason has been, in the past, a crime that was abused by governments to suppress dissent, and that this will not happen here.

But it is the First Amendment that was assaulted by Congress when they passed Campaign Finance Reform.

Oh, no, it's not. The First Amendment, in relevant part, says that Congress shall make no law restricting free speech. Well, we're not talking about free speech here, we're talking about very expensive speech.


Actually, campaign finance reform enhances free speech by allowing the voters a chance to be heard. The present system restricts free speech, or more properly the right to petition government, to the elite.