posted on August 11, 2003 06:32:04 AM new
here is what the usa republican party wants for your children and you, and you thought they cared, this is just some of the act, i suggest people you get the whole lot to read and decide if you want Bush the traitor to the people of this once great nation, to be your president again, spread the word, before it's too late
Secret Patriot Act II Destroys
Remaining US Liberty
Total Police State Takeover
The Secret Patriot Act II Destroys What
Is Left of American Liberty
By Alex Jones
www.infowars.com
2-11-3
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control.
On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying 87-page bill.
*Note: On February 10, 2003 I discovered that not only was there a house version that had been covertly brought to Hastert, but that many provisions of the now public Patriot Act II had already been introduced as pork barrel riders on Senate Bill S. 22. Dozens of subsections and even the titles of the subsections are identical to those in the House version. This is very important because it catches the Justice Department in a bald-faced lie. The Justice Department claimed that the secret legislation brought into the House was only for study, and that at this time there was no intention to try and pass it. Now upon reading S. 22, it is clear that the leadership of the Senate is fully aware of the Patriot Act II, and have passed these riders out of their committees into the full bill. I spent two hours scanning through S. 22 and, let me tell you, it is a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty. It even contains the Our Lady of Peace Act that registers all gun owners. It bans the private sale of all firearms, creates a Federal ballistics database, and much more.
The bill itself is stamped 'Confidential ö Not for Distribution.' Upon reading the analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney as well as the executive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.
It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was tolerate by the House and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot Act.
There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at concerning this new legislation:
1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States. The fact that Dick Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot Act, insuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening members of Congress that if they didn't vote in favor of it that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House's own definition terrorism. The move to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an impeachable offense.
2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants the government and its private agents total immunity.
Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical legislation:
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law." Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.
SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database) set up a national database of "suspected terrorists" and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as "terrorist." These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the "enemy combatant" designation.
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.
SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.
SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told us: "this is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever."
SECTION 111 expands the definition of the "enemy combatant" designation.
SECTION 122 restates the government's newly announced power of "surveillance without a court order."
SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, "thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime."
*Note: Over and over again, in subsection after subsection, the second Patriot Act states that its new Soviet-type powers will be used to fight international terrorism, domestic terrorism and other types of crimes. Of course the government has already announced in Section 802 of the first USA Patriot act that any crime is considered domestic terrorism.
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to totally break down any and all walls of privacy.
The government states that they must look at everything to "determine" if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners' and medical examiners' operations whenever they see fit. See how this is like Bill Clinton's special medical examiner he had in Arkansas that ruled that people had committed suicide when their arms and legs had been cut off.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents.
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.
SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to "stop other unlawful activities." It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing.
SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures ö has anyone seen Minority Report? This is the access hub for the Total Information Awareness Network.
SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.
SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.
SECTION 402 is titled "Providing Material Support to Terrorism." The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.
SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or "other criminals" to use encryption in the commission of a crime.
SECTION 408 creates "lifetime parole" (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.
SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.
SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.
There are many other sections that I did not cover in the interest of time. The American people were shocked by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation in modern world history.
Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is an Adolf Hitler wish list.
You can understand why President Bush, Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert want to keep this legislation secret not just from Congress, but the American people as well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the Center for Public Integrity, the group that broke this story, stated on my radio show that it was obvious that they were just waiting for another terrorist attack to opportunistically get this new bill through. He then shocked me with an insightful comment about how the Federal government was crafting this so that they could go after the American people in general. He also agreed that the FBI has been quietly demonizing patriots and Christians and "those who carry around pocket Constitutions."
I have produced two documentary films and written a book about what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control. Anyone who doubts this just hasn't looked at the mountains of hard evidence.
Of course, the current group of white collar criminals in the White House might not care that we're finding out the details of their next phase. Because, after all, when smallpox gets released, or more buildings start blowing up, the President can stand up there at his lectern suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or two, and tell us that "See I was right. I had to take away your rights to keep you safe. And now it's your fault that all of these children are dead." From that point on, anyone who criticizes tyranny will be shouted down by the paid talking head government mouthpieces in the mainstream media.
You have to admit, it's a beautiful script. Unfortunately, it's being played out in the real world. If we don't get the word out that government is using terror to control our lives while doing nothing to stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get - tyranny. But our children won't deserve it.
Alex Jones' article, Secret Patriot Act II Destroys What is Left of American Liberty, reminds me:
In the 1970's I had a friend who had penpals all over the world. One day he wrote me that his pal in the Soviet Union had written that he feared for his life because the KGB were shadowing his every move. He never knew why. A stray word perhaps? Then one day he just disappeared, as so many seemed to do. And I thanked God that I lived in a country where that kind of thing didn't happen.
The story is told that shortly after Nikita Khrushchev was made leader of the Soviet Union, he was addressing a large audience on the iniquities of Joseph Stalin when suddenly a voice shot out from the back of the hall: "You were one of his colleagues, why didn't you stop him?"
Glaring round the crowded hall, Khrushchev bellowed: "Who said that?"
posted on August 11, 2003 02:02:27 PM new
bigcitycollectibles
Let them find out the hard way.
Oh, God, I hope it doesn't come to that. It's useless to try and open their eyes. They remain shut. They will remain shut right up to the end - in 2004!!!! Suddenly, their eyes will pop open because Bush will be gone. Then they'll be just a bunch of lost souls roaming the Texas countryside.
Good post skylite!
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 12, 2003 07:20:43 AM new
Company fined $6,000 for
answering customer's question
"Is any of this stuff made in Israel?"
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News June 27, 2003
A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for answering a customer's question and not reporting to the federal government that the question was asked. The question that's punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?
The Kansas City Star reports:
The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.
We ask: Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden?
It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question.
Only a few years ago, during South Africa's apartheid era, it was considered the height of good moral backbone to ask whether a product came from that country. Today, many Americans are asking such questions about products they suspect came from France, after the French government declined to join "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
The article doesn't make it clear whether these restrictions apply only to US companies selling stuff outside the US, or whether the law applies to everyone. Either way, it's reprehensible.
[Editor's note: Here's what the Office of Antiboycott Compliance says: "The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates."]
If K-Mart is having a sale on cheap plastic chess sets and we ask the clerk whether the board or pieces were made in Israel, is the clerk allowed to answer? Must the store promptly file a form with the Bureau of Industry and Security reporting that we asked?
Well, we'll be asking the forbidden question in every store we enter. Not because we're boycotting Israel — we're not. Heck, if we were boycotting products from countries whose policies are abhorrent, we'd start by boycotting anything marked "made in USA."
We'll be asking the forbidden question because we believe in freedom. In a free society, the government doesn't tell people what questions they can ask, and what questions they can't, and what questions must be promptly reported to the authorities.
We had heard of this law before — banning people from even asking about boycotting Israeli products — but we had foolishly assumed it wasn't often enforced.
According to the article, though, "more than $26 million in fines" have been levied for violations of this law, suggesting that enforcement of the Forbidden Question Law is not at all uncommon. The fine in this case was $6,000, so assuming that's average and doing the math, more than 4,000 Americans or American companies have been fined — for asking the forbidden question, or failure to report that someone else asked the forbidden question.
* * *
North Kansas City company settles charge
related to boycott of Israel
by Dan Margolies, Kansas City Star June 25, 2003
Cook Composites and Polymers Co. has agreed to pay a $6,000 fine to settle charges that it violated Commerce Department regulations aimed at countering the Arab boycott of Israel.
The department's Bureau of Industry and Security had charged that, in response to a request from a customer in Bahrain, Cook had furnished information stating that the goods being shipped were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli materials.
The bureau also charged that Cook had failed to report its receipt of the request.
Cook, of North Kansas City, neither admitted nor denied the allegations, but agreed to pay the $6,000 civil penalty.
The antiboycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.
Cook's chief executive, Charles Bennett, was in Paris this week and unavailable for comment. A spokeswoman for the company, Rita Durocher, said the fine marked the first time Cook has had a run-in with a federal agency.
"If you go back and look at our record, we've been flawless with other government agencies," she said.
Cook makes polyester gels and other coating resins. It operates plants throughout North America.
The settlement with the Commerce Department came after the Bush administration in November warned U.S. companies not to heed calls to boycott Israeli goods and services. The warning followed a call by the 22-member Arab League to reactivate its decades-long boycott of Israel.
In a statement released at the time by the department, Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster reminded American companies that the "U.S. government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted against Israel."
Knowing violators of the anti-boycott provisions face fines of up to $50,000, or five times the value of the exports at issue, and possible imprisonment. Offenders can also be denied export privileges.
The Bureau of Industry and Security says it has imposed more than $26 million in fines for violations of the provisions.
More than a decade ago, the Commerce Department sent compliance officers to Kansas City to check out tips that Marion Merrell Dow Inc. and Marley Cooling Tower Co. may have cooperated with the Arab boycott. Nothing came of the investigation, and no penalties were imposed.
In Cook's case, the Bureau of Industry and Security charged that Cook failed to report a letter of credit it received on Dec. 1, 1997, from ABN AMRO Bank in Manama, Bahrain. The letter asked it to confirm that the goods being shipped "are not of Israeli origin nor do they contain any Israeli"material.
The bureau also charged that on Jan. 20, 1998, Cook, through its freight forwarder, provided a U.S. bank with a copy of a commercial invoice confirming that the goods were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli material.
Cook, with 558 employees overall and 120 employees locally, is one of North Kansas City's biggest employers. The company bills itself as the No. 1 producer of gel coats in the world and, together with affiliated companies, the No. 2 producer of resins.
Since 1990, Cook has had a joint venture relationship with the chemicals division of TotalFinaElf, a multibillion-dollar petrochemicals giant based in Paris.
Published by
The Kansas City Star
posted on August 12, 2003 12:41:19 PM new
the US media is condoning and contributing to facist takeover
Hitler: An Officer And A Gentleman?
History's warning regarding a compliant media.
by Henk Ruyssenaars
08/11/03: Foreign Press Foundation -The Netherlands - Aug. 11th-2003 - Until the Russian bullet hit officer Schultz, during the battle at Stalingrad, he really was totally convinced that Adolf Hitler was 'an Officer and a Gentleman', like himself. And he explained why, while we sat at a small round table in the wine cellar of his cozy forest hotel, where he taught us how to drink vodka like the Russians.
One side of his face was paralyzed by the bullet, so he had to pull his lips ajar to get the vodka glass in between. "It was the propaganda" he said, "because in the Army - like in the rest of the Third Reich - no other information than Reichs-propaganda was allowed".
Officer Schultz survived the long march back home, to a destroyed Germany, and started a small family hotel at the Hariksee, just across the border from Holland where my family lived. Ex-officer Schultz was trying to cope with the harsh life he for such a long time had known so little about; a reality very different from the army-propaganda in the newspapers.
The first time I met him, at age 13, on a family holiday in his hotel, was in 1955. The Second World-War just ended ten years ago, and Hitler's bloody horror had been on the front pages all over the world, for just as long.
And I still remember his explanation : " Why do you think nobody - in the by German troops occupied countries - was allowed to have a radio ? The German Supreme Command didn't want any other information than the German newspapers and broadcasting to reach the people. It was their - and their information alone - which counted. And when I learned upon returning, in what way the facts had been forged by Goebbels* , I understood Hitler's Third Reich was a fake."
"Wir haben es nicht gewusst"
Mr. Schultz was not using the usual "Wir haben es nicht gewusst"-excuse, about 'not knowing it all', but carefully pointed out, that lack of facts and information creates disasters. "You can brainwash many people for a very long time" he said, "but you can only fool them, if you control all the information outlets; rewriting history."
And for the past decades- working abroad as a foreign correspondent - I've seen the same development in the States, but in my own country the Netherlands too. Which was a very open and progressive society before, but where also most journalism now has fallen victim to commerce and politics, and different points of view are not allowed any more.
Like the United States, the Netherlands is mainly run by the military-industrial complex (SHELL-Philips-Unilever-Amro-ING-Akzo-Nobel etc.etc.), having absorbed the politicians and media already earlier. The effect is dishonest and disastrous.
In a poll just published, it is indicated that in Holland, with it's 16 million - badly informed - inhabitants - a whopping fifty-six percent of the people is supporting the US/UK-wars ? Since it's the journalists which write, read and show the selected information - they form the opinion.
There is absolutely no question about it : all those lies, the fakes and the nonexistent evidence of this or that, is put in our ears and eyes by my 'colleagues'; trying to brainwash us. This is not a matter of 'shooting the messengers'; it's just telling them that many of them are traitors, collaborators and liars. They are selling our profession and honor, forgetting they are working for the people, and not the shareholders.
In Holland, still a friend of the United States people, nowadays only the people at present holding the reigns, support the Bush/Wolfowitz-junta. Afghanistan and Iraq takes its toll on Dutch-U.S. ties, because the population has a feeling of being constantly misled. Like officer Schultz. And like in the US, England or the Third Reich, the collaborating journalists are to blame.
Their 'effect' is for instance clearly shown in a poll in Germany where journalists and Government are mostly anti-war, and thus do not slide as much 'Newspeak' on the plates of the people they are working for, as is done by the collaborating media in Holland:
"Poll shows : George W. Bush; another big reason Americans not very popular in Germany right now".
By Elisabeth Noelle - Allensbach Institute of Public Opinion Research.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Poll, English: Link
A new survey of German public opinion leaves no doubt that the Iraq war caused serious damage to the German-U.S. relationship. Almost half the respondents in our poll, conducted on behalf of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, said the United States and Europe have grown apart.
Although the Bush Administration made clear its disapproval of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's position on the conflict, this appears to have had little impact in Germany, where 68 percent of respondents backed the chancellor's definitive ³no³ to the war and his argument that there was insufficient justification for an American attack on the country."
- And here's the proof for the umpteenth time, of how journalists are 'guilty by association' :
Based upon the information distributed by the journalists, in Germany 68 percent of the people are saying 'No' to the US-wars.
If there's any truth in the Aug. 7th -Dutch poll; 56 (fifty six) percent in Holland is thus saying 'Yes' to the wars ? How come there's absolutely nobody I know, nor my friends know in the rest of the country, who supports the war ? Are all those polls faked ?
When a debate about the legitimacy of the Dutch F-16's bombing in Afghanistan erupted, on the web site of the Netherlands Journalists Association (NVJ), the Forum was closed, four days ago. None of the Dutch mainstream media even mentioned it ! ( http://www.villamedia.nl/ ). And that's a very, very bad sign in itself: the rot sits deep, and like with fishes : "Holland has started rotting at the head".
Mossad 'Headquarters Europe' in Holland ?
The Dutch are paying the second highest taxes in the world - Sweden is nr. ! - and are seeing $-billions disappear in "secret agreements", with mostly the US and Israël. The latter seems to be 'running' Holland's main airport 'Schiphol' close to Amsterdam. Where - according to US-sources - the 'Mossad', Secret Isr. Service has it's European headquarters.
Dutch Attorney General Vrakking testified on Jan. 29, 1999, that the El Al security detachment at Schiphol, was a branch of Mossad. http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_14_02/Jetliner_Crash_/jetliner_crash_.html
Holland, secretly taking part in naval blockade of North Korea.
For the bombing by the Dutch Air Force (up to 2000 missions), there is no UN-mandate, Holland was not attacked nor threatened, so the bombing is a war-crime, legal experts conclude. But also this information may not be discussed, nor is information given about Holland now secretly taking part
in the naval blockade of North Korea, to start a new war there. (The nuclear 'October Surprise?).
This information was published on the web site of the Dutch Journalists Union (NVJ), shortly before it was closed : "On July 23, 2003 a USA Today report indicated that the United States had reached an agreement with Japan, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, and Spain to intercept North Korean ships suspected of carrying narcotics or weapons materials."
In short : Officer Shultz saw 50 years ago what we see again : as long as many people - under the cover of journalism - collaborate instead of using their own brains, Goebbels-propaganda is triumphing. There is however hope for humanity, and punishment for the warmongers, also among the journalists:
"On December 15, 2002 the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan (ICTA) convened its first public hearing in Tokyo to try President Bush. Four hundred participants gathered to raise the curtain with an opening declaration of the ³Culture of Peace² against "The Globalization of the Military.²
posted on August 14, 2003 07:09:28 AM new
Yep, and it's going to get worse, it's coming to a house near you, and then it will come for you
THE ASSAULT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES
by Jim Cornehls
September 11, 2001, marked a momentous and tragic event in U.S. history. It also evoked a flood of patriotic fervor and an instant fear that Americans now were vulnerable to international terrorism. Capitalizing on these fears, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government quickly enacted measures purported to counteract terrorism or terrorist threats. One of the principal results of this activity was an act titled “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” or, the USA PATRIOT Act, passed and signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act is one of the most sweeping acts in modern American history because of its potential impact on the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens residing in the United States
It is hard to believe the Act could have been drafted, debated, and passed in only 45 days. It is over 342 pages long and extremely complicated. Given its complexity, and the fact the legislation represented a wish list of new investigative and detention powers long sought by law enforcement officials, it is more likely the pro-law enforcement Administration had been drafting such provisions for many months. Post-September 11 provided the perfect opportunity to introduce them, with very little Congressional or public opposition. The Senate voted for the Act 98 to 1 and the House 356 to 66. The vast majority of Americans never even heard of it at the time.
The Act is complex and difficult to grasp because of its multiple references to and incorporation of other foreign intelligence acts, principally the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Congressional hearings were minimal and the legislation was not accompanied by either a committee or conference report. Nonetheless, in the meager hearings that took place, the Act was vigorously opposed by numerous civil rights groups, especially the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who warned that the Act was constitutionally defective and represented a broad attack on many of the traditional civil liberties enjoyed in the U.S.
One of the most significant features of the Act is a new, broader definition given to terrorism. The definition now also includes “domestic,” as contrasted with international terrorism. Section 802 states that a person engages in domestic terrorism if they do any act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if that action appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Further, the act or acts must take place primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
This definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of such organizations as Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Environmental Liberation Front, protests about Vieques Island, and protests at the meeting of the World Trade Organization. Civil disobedience, such as entering on the premises of a U.S. military base, which is a violation of federal law, would now be included within the definition of an act of domestic terrorism. Disrupting a meeting or procession of vehicles as a means of drawing attention to or attempting to influence an unwanted governmental policy all could be considered acts of domestic terrorism. The implications are huge and the Act can be used to prosecute political dissidents of many stripes.The Act potentially violates at least six of the ten original Bill of Rights: the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 13th Amendment. It grants broad new powers to law enforcement and permits law enforcement officials to side-step or avoid entirely many traditional controls on the surveillance, investigation, arrest, and prosecution of civilians residing in the United States.
The first effects of the Act were soon felt when the government secretly arrested and jailed more than 1,200 people in connection with its investigation of the events of September 11. “Despite demands from members of Congress, numerous civil liberties and human rights organizations, and the media, the Government refused to make public the number of people arrested, their names, their lawyers, the reasons for their arrest, and other information related to their whereabouts and circumstances.”
After first failing, by means of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to obtain information about those arrested and held, multiple organizations joined to file suit in federal district court in Washington, DC (Center for National Security Studies, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice). The government still refused to provide the requested information, citing several exemptions under FOIA. A final order in the case was not entered until August 2, 2002, which required the government to divulge the names of almost all those arrested. By that time most of those arrested had been either released or deported.
Many of those arrested and jailed were Arabs and Muslims, who were cab drivers, construction workers, and other laborers, with no more than ordinary visa violations. Many of them were caught up in routine traffic stops and other incidental contacts with law enforcement officials. Some were incarcerated for up to seven months without being charged or permitted to see their families. Despite the lower court’s ruling, the government still refused to divulge the names of those arrested and is appealing the decision.
In a related secrecy issue, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others sought to have the Supreme Court review a secret appeals court decision that broadly expanded the government’s power to spy on U.S. citizens. The special, secret court was created in 1978 with the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Its purpose was to review and approve government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. All hearings and decisions of the court are conducted in secret. Now, under the PATRIOT Act’s new definition of foreign intelligence investigations, its role is being expanded to include domestic investigations that the government claims are related to foreign intelligence. The Supreme Court, in its first decision on an issue related to the PATRIOT Act, refused the request to review the secret decision of this special court.
In subsequent months, the PATRIOT Act was challenged on other grounds. The Justice Department used the Act to declare two American citizens enemy combatants. They then were held as military prisoners, denied the right to an attorney or access to civilian courts, and left without a roadmap as to how they could challenge their imprisonment. One was arrested in Afghanistan, the other in Chicago. The Justice Department took the position that it was improper for courts to inquire too deeply into the government’s classification of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. The District Court in Norfolk, Virginia ruled that the two-page memo provided by the government to explain its decision in one of these instances was inadequate. However, that ruling was overturned by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit in Richmond in January 2003.On March 11, Manhattan U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey stood by his earlier, December ruling to allow one of the U.S. citizens, Jose Padilla, who was arrested in Chicago, to meet with defense lawyers. The Justice Department announced it would study the opinion before deciding whether to appeal.
Another area in which the Act has been challenged concerns the Administration’s decision to hold as many as 600 deportation hearings in secret. It did this based on the Attorney General’s assertion that those detained for deportation were suspected of having links to terrorism. A federal district judge in New Jersey ordered that all such deportation hearings be opened to the public unless the government could show, on a case-by-case basis, there was a need for secrecy. That decision also was overturned, by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which held that secrecy was warranted by the grave threats to the nation.
Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a lower court decision that such deportation hearings must be open, unless good cause is shown for secrecy. That is now the law in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee and makes it likely the Supreme Court will consider at least one of these cases to resolve the conflict. However, since most deportation hearings are heard in New Jersey, the Cincinnati court’s ruling may be little more than a gesture.
All told, through mid-March, 2003, the ACLU had filed or participated as a plaintiff in 31 lawsuits and friend of the court briefs in connection with government activities involving arrest, detention, surveillance, and First Amendment violations, in which countering possible terrorist acts was the ostensible reason for the actions. The number of other government violations of civil liberties that have gone unchallenged is inestimable.
Aside from these court challenges, the PATRIOT Act insinuated itself into the everyday lives of ordinary Americans in a variety of ways. While the PATRIOT Act granted extensive new powers to law enforcement, the Bush administration augmented and extended these powers through the issuance of 11 new executive orders, 10 new interim agency regulations, and 2 final regulations implemented by the Justice Department. In this way the Administration sidestepped both the legislative and judicial branches. Government investigations pursuant to the Act are shrouded in secrecy, such as the closed deportation hearings, the secret arrests, and the new power of the government to enter and search the homes of private citizens without notifying them.
Yet another government power under the Act requires courts to issue warrants and orders based on the mere government assertion that the order is sought in connection with a terrorism investigation. These warrants and orders permit the FBI to question any person about co-workers and other persons and to demand access to records about such individuals. The Court order also warns the person questioned not to reveal anything about the contact to anyone else, under threat of criminal sanctions. As a result, it is difficult to determine just what law enforcement officials using the Act are actually doing.The chilling effect of the Act on free speech and political dissent has been felt already. Individuals have been questioned by the FBI about their political beliefs for being openly critical of a possible war against Iraq. In San Francisco, a 60-year-old retiree remarked at his local gym that he thought any war with Iraq was not just about fighting terrorists, but about corporate profits and oil. He promptly received a visit at home from the FBI with questions about his political beliefs.
The FBI paid a call on a North Carolina college student for displaying an “un-American poster” in her own home. The poster in question was critical of President Bush’s stand on capital punishment while serving as governor of Texas. While there the FBI agents asked the student if she had any pro-Taliban materials.
Federal agents spent an hour or more inspecting a car museum in Houston, Texas based on a tip that artwork on display at the museum was “of a nature threatening to the president.” There were no such art works, but the agents questioned a museum docent about the artists, who funded the museum, and who had visited the exhibit.
Other low ranking quasi-law enforcement officials have eagerly joined in the suppression of individual First Amendment rights since the passage of the Act. Recently, in a shopping mall in Guilderland, New York, a 61-year-old lawyer and his son were wearing T-shirts that read “Peace On Earth” and “Give Peace A Chance.” They were ordered by mall security guards to remove the offending shirts or leave the mall. The lawyer refused and was charged with trespassing. Recently, Natalie Maines, the lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, an all female country and western group, spoke out in opposition to the Administration’s war policies in Iraq and criticized President Bush. Subsequently, at a pro-war rally organized by radio station KRMD, part of a radio chain, which banned the Dixie Chicks from its play lists, a tractor was used to smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CDs, tapes, and other paraphernalia, while a supportive crowd looked on.
Other, pro-war Bush rallies were sponsored around the nation by radio stations. Called Rally for America, Clear Channel Communications organized them. Clear Channel is a San Antonio-based organization that controls more than 1,200 radio stations and whose vice chairperson, Tom Hicks, is a close friend and political supporter of President Bush.
Since September 11, there have been innumerable instances of public officials, quasi-public officials, and private citizens attempting to control political speech. These range from banning public rallies and peaceful marches to the cancellation of a Baseball Hall of Fame appearance by Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Dale Petroskey, the president of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
There were other instances in American history when the government adopted extraordinary measures to suppress unpopular political views or arrest those suspected of being disloyal to the United States. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. As a result tens of thousands of Americans suspected of being disloyal to the Union were arrested and held without charges by the military. During World War I, and the Red Scare, as many as 10,000 resident aliens, targeted because of their political views, were arrested, interrogated, jailed, and beaten to force them to sign confessions. Raids were carried out in over 30 cities and some 500 “aliens” were deported.During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order for the forced internment of 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living on the U.S. West Coast. Two-thirds of those placed in so-called preventive detention, under harsh conditions, were U.S. citizens against whom there was no evidence of collaboration with the Japanese.
During the Cold War, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when fears of communism were fueled by certain U.S. political leaders and anti-Communist hysteria was rampant, leaders of the American Communist Party were criminally prosecuted and imprisoned under the Smith Act for their political beliefs. The House Un-American Activities Committee carried out a witch hunt of suspected Communists and so-called “fellow travelers.” Thousands of Americans were subpoenaed and called to testify about their own and other Americans’ political affiliations and activities. Those who refused to testify were held in contempt and imprisoned. In other instances, college professors and other employees were forced to sign so-called loyalty oaths or lose their jobs.
Richard Posner, a conservative federal jurist in Chicago, uses the above instances to argue that the current measures taken under the PATRIOT Act are not that worrisome. He urges the use of cost/benefit analysis to weigh the relative importance of liberty vs. security at a time of perceived threats to security. He believes that in time, when the threats to security have waned, a balance between liberty and security interests will be restored.
This sanguine view overlooks the fact that the earlier restrictions on civil rights were one-time phenomena, more specifically targeted, and narrow in scope. In the case of the PATRIOT Act, the restrictions are broad, indefinite, and far-reaching. The Administration insists the war on terrorism is open-ended and will continue for many years, if not indefinitely. Many of the emergency measures to combat the threat of terrorism will likely become permanent and even more comprehensive. Senator Orrin Hatch, a leading congressional supporter of the PATRIOT Act, recently tried quietly to introduce amendments to strengthen the Act and make it permanent.
Already, there is a new bill, prepared by the Justice Department, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Dubbed PATRIOT II, the new act seeks to further expand the government’s powers to combat suspected terrorism and further encroaches on civil liberties. According to David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, the proposed new act will expand the authority of law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies; reduce or eliminate entirely judicial oversight of surveillance; permit wiretapping of Americans—without any court order—for 15 days if the executive branch decides there is a national emergency; authorize secret arrests; create a DNA data bank based solely on unconfirmed executive suspicion; create new offenses punishable with the death penalty; and seek to strip Americans of their citizenship if they belong to or support disfavored political groups. Perhaps as importantly, the draft bill was produced in secret, without consultation with Congress. Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff, who inquired of the Justice Department about any such proposed legislation, were informed that no such legislation was being planned only a few days before the proposed bill was publicly revealed on PBS’s “Frontline NOW.”The U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has swept aside all criticism of the Administration’s current disregard for traditional civil liberties by publicly proclaiming that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Ashcroft’s views are so extreme that he has alarmed even the conservative right wing of the Republican Party. While agreeing with his position on abortion and child pornography, they are asking how they and their own organizations might fare under the new rules affecting civil liberties. If another power were to occupy the United States and institute the policies provided for in the USA PATRIOT Act—secret arrests, secret trials, secret investigations, secret depor- tations—the United States would be considered a police state.
The federal government is also enlisting American universities to assist in maintaining surveillance of foreign students residing in the United States. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS), launched February 15, 2003, will involve almost 6,000 U.S. colleges and universities in gathering and forwarding information about foreign students to a national computer data bank. Along with other information gathered, the schools must notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) if a foreign student fails to enroll or is arrested. Institutions that do not have INS approval to participate in the data gathering system will be prohibited from enrolling new foreign students. (On March 1, 2003, the INS was merged into the new Department of Homeland Security and is now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.)
This past February, a Jordanian foreign exchange student, who confessed to once having had thoughts of being a terrorist martyr, but subsequently renounced those ideas, was summarily ordered deported within five days by a U.S. immigration judge in Dallas. The student, three months shy of earning a master’s degree in software engineering at a Texas university, was under investigation by the FBI for undisclosed reasons.
Currently being put into effect is another new plan, dubbed CAPPS II, in cooperation with U.S. airlines. It will check the backgrounds of all commercial passengers and assign them a threat level of red, yellow, or green. Information about the passengers’ credit reports, bank account activity, and cross checks with the names of persons on a government watch list were to be instituted by Delta airlines about April 1, 2003. A comprehensive system that includes all airlines should be in place by the end of the year.
Creating comprehensive homeland security would cost trillions of dollars and completely change the way Americans lead their lives. It would include national identity cards, surveillance, and subject to search rules in all public places, random searches of vehicles entering airports and parking garages, compiling dossiers on all persons who take scuba diving lessons, tracking the comings and goings of subway riders electronically, and the list goes on and on. Virtually everything anyone does, 24 hours a day, would be subject to constant surveillance.
Already, the security measures put in place in New York City are a portent of things to come throughout the nation. There is a proliferation of armed security guards, surveillance cameras, handbag searches, metal detectors, electronic access cards, and bomb sniffing dogs from the railroad terminals to the art museums. Heavily-armed police officers, dressed like assault troops, patrol landmark buildings such as St. Patrick’s Cathedral in midtown Manhattan. The costs of these measures—and these are just the tip of the iceberg—are potentially astronomical. The costs in terms of the loss of civil liberties are incalculable.
As the scope of the Act and the threats it represents to all U.S. residents became more apparent, more than 100 municipalities and Hawaii, passed resolutions in opposition to the Act. Some encouraged public employees not to comply with the Act’s most invasive and civil rights threatening features. One, Arcata, California, criminalized compliance with the Act. But the main features of a U.S. police state are already in place and it will take a major groundswell of public opposition to undo them
posted on August 14, 2003 07:23:05 AM new
Arizona is Bigfoot country, according to Lyle Vann, director of the Arizona Bigfoot Center in Paulden, Arizona.
The creature has been spotted in every state of the Union except Hawaii and Rhode Island and Arizona is no exception, Vann said. "I've been all over the U.S. but most of the research on Bigfoot is being carried on in California."
In North America, the American Indians were the first to see Bigfoot on this continent. They called the beast Sasquatch (large hairy man), he said.
Vann believes the Bigfoot creatures are being controlled by aliens to mine gold and silver from the earth's crust. Bigfoot and the aliens live inside the earth, he said.
"The creatures are nocturnal. They live in subterranean caves. The reason the aliens use them for mining is because they are strong, gentle creatures," Vann explained.
Vann would not disclose any of the areas of Arizona where he has seen the Bigfoot creatures.
"That's because too many people carry guns. They tend to shoot anything they don't understand," he said.
A former Airborne Ranger, Vann admits he once "poo-pooed" the existence of Bigfoot. But after a close encounter with the creatures in California, Vann became a believer. And he became very apprehensive about the blue-skinned aliens.
"I don't trust them," he said alluding to several scary encounters with them.
Once an alien elevated Vann several feet off the ground and he has the picture to prove it. The photo shows the alien wearing a hood partially hidden in the branches of a nearby tree. The alien appears to be holding a black box that Vann believes emitted a kind of "force" causing his levitation. The photo also shows a black panther-like animal is lying under a bush near the alien.
Vann had set up a camera on a tripod while investigating the area when the incident occurred. The camera's shutter was set to trip automatically.
Vann has lived in Arizona since 1984 with his wife Jacqueline. "The reason we moved here was to get out of the hustle and bustle of California," he said. While in California, Vann did motion picture work for Fox Pictures.
"Many people think Bigfoot smells--that he has a bad smell," Vann said. "That's not the case in Arizona. The reason is because there is not a lot of sulfur in the ground here. In California, there's a lot of sulfur underground and it gets into Bigfoot's coat because Bigfoot lives underground. That is what makes them smell."
"I believe in what I'm doing," Vann said about his research and investigation of the creatures. "Some people fish. Some people hunt. I look for Bigfoot with my camera."
He founded the Arizona Bigfoot Center for the people of Arizona. "They can get in touch with me if they want to know something about Bigfoot," he said.
posted on August 14, 2003 07:25:55 AM new
In the summer of 1977, an elderly lady sat quietly reading book on the porch of her cottagein a densely wooded area in northern Wisconsin. Suddenly, an invisible force sent the book out of her hands onto the porch floor. She heard someone laughing. At the edge of the forest stood the form of a huge apelike creature with dark auburn hair all over its body. This credible lady continued to have telepathic conversations with the man-creature for four consecutive summers and came to know him as Sasquatch!
Is this a rare and unusual event? Not at all. Jack "Kewaunee" Lapseritis has devoted his life to this research—conducting countless interviews and spending weeks alone in the forest&151;quietly trying to communicate with them, rather than hunt them.
posted on August 14, 2003 07:27:35 AM new
The "Psychic Sasquatch" provides us with revelations about these gentle creatures and the astonishing truth about their connection to extraterrestrials and why they cannot be found. The Sasquatch consider themselves to be the first "people" to populate this planet and they were brought here millions of years ago by their friends, the Starpeople! There were bipedal human-type creatures here at the time, but the Sasquatch considered them to be 'animals' because they were so unevolved that they had not even yet discovered fire. The Sasquatch say that they are transported to new regions of wilderness whenever hostile humans or developers enter the creature's immediate domain. The Sasquatch insist that ET intervention occurred with all races of humans and higher hominoid types. The Sasquatch also said that seven races of Bigfoot have been seeded on Earth, with one race less than five feet tall and another up to fifteen feet tall.
posted on August 14, 2003 07:45:02 AM newSkylite, Good article!
The Patriot Act
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act after the 9-11 attacks:
Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests. "Sensitive" information has been removed from government Web sites.
Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. "Enemy combatants" have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.
Source: The Associated Press, with information from Knight-Ridder Newspapers included
posted on August 14, 2003 09:05:19 AM new
going to get worse people, the nazi / stalinists are here, IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT NOW before your children disappear into a black van
ACLU CHALLENGES PATRIOT ACT
The American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU) filed suit in federal court July 30 against parts of the USA PATRIOT Act that allow authorities to carry out secret searches and monitor books people read. "Ordinary Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through their medical records, seizing their personal papers, or forcing charities and advocacy groups to divulge membership lists," said ACLU attorney Ann Beeson. In March, the US Supreme Court declined without comment to consider an earlier ACLU challenge to the government's expanded surveillance powers under the PATRIOT Act. The new challenge was jointly announced by the ACLU in Michigan and Portland, OR. The Portland Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested the imam of a local mosque, Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, on Sept. 8, 2002, sparking demonstrations on the steps of the federal courthouse in Portland. The US attorney's office accused Kariye of Social Security fraud and he was sentenced to five years probation. (AP, July 30
posted on August 14, 2003 09:08:07 AM new
SCHUMER BLASTS BUSH FOR "STALINIST" TACTICS IN 9-11 INQUIRY
New York Sen. Charles Schumer accused the Bush administration of using "Stalinist" tactics by requiring ovrseers to be present when federal employees are interviewed by the independent commission investigating the 9-11 attacks. "Gatekeepers usually occur in places with totalitarian regimes, Schumer told a news conference July 9. "Stalinist Russia was known for that." Schumer spoke out a day after the commission's leaders charged that the overseers were intimidating witnesses and that federal agencies were impeding the inquiry by responding slowly to information requests. The 10-member commission was appointed last year by the White House and Congress, and is to issue a report next May
posted on August 17, 2003 12:15:17 PM new
WASHINGTON TODAY: Momentum growing against Patriot Act, government tries to shore up support
JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Saturday, August 16, 2003
(08-16) 10:13 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Sept. 11 attacks convinced Congress that the federal government needed enhanced legal and investigative powers to pursue terrorists.
Yet in the two years since passing the Patriot Act, lawmakers have grown uneasy over Attorney General John Ashcroft's use of the expanded surveillance and detention powers. Not only are they leery of his requests for even greater authority, they are moving to curtail some of the tools they granted in the law.
The House voted last month to prohibit the use of federal funds on "sneak and peek" searches that the law says the government can conduct in criminal investigations without the property owner's or resident's knowledge and with warrants delivered afterward.
"This is the first of a whole group of assaults that we're going to make on the Patriot Act," said Rep. Butch Otter of Idaho, one of the few Republicans who voted against -it two years ago. "It was built in one day, but we're going to have to tear it down piece by piece."
Ashcroft defends the law as "a long overdue measure to close gaping holes in the government's ability, responsibly and lawfully, to collect vital intelligence information on criminal terrorists." He plans a public defense, starting with a speech Tuesday in Washington.
He also is visiting Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit and more than a dozen other cities to promote the law's successes. Also on his agenda is trying to dispel "misconceptions," according to the Justice Department, about what the law allows law enforcement officials to do.
Justice Department officials are predicting dire consequences if Congress takes back the post-Sept. 11 powers.
For example, Otter's measure, if the Senate agrees, "could result in the intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, flight from prosecution, physical injury, and even death," Assistant Attorney General William Moschella wrote lawmakers.
The law is officially named the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. It granted the government broad powers for searches, wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping, and wide access to financial and other information held by individuals and businesses.
Concerned about possible abuses, lawmakers put a 2005 expiration date on many of the wiretapping and surveillance measures, including a provision that gives authorities access to records of what people check out from libraries or buy from bookstores.
But that date is not soon enough for some lawmakers and others.
"When the Patriot Act was passed, smoke was still coming out of the rubble of the Pentagon and the twin towers" of New York's World Trade Center, Otter said. "We rushed in order to provide some comfort to the people of the United States. It was a big mistake."
A diverse group of lawmakers has filed bills to roll back portions of the law. The members of Congress include Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the only senator to vote against the measure, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Reps. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Joseph Hoeffel, D-Pa.
And others are talking about doing the same. Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, normally a staunch supporter of the Bush administration and its policies, said on Wednesday Congress must monitor how the Patriot Act is being used, "and there may come a time, and it may be next year, that we need to pull it back."
Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii, and 142 local governments have passed measures opposing the act. The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights have separately sued in federal court to challenge different parts of the law.
The Justice Department insists that much of the opposition stems from confusion about what it does and does not allow federal law enforcement officers to do.
Ashcroft has defended the libraries provision, saying subpoenas of business or library records are subject to greater scrutiny by judges under the anti-terrorism law than those issued under regular criminal investigations.
"There is misinformation, misunderstanding about the Patriot Act," Ashcroft said in a recent television interview. "The American people get it pretty well."
Ashcroft has even used some of the Democratic presidential contenders' own words to shore up support for the law, which broke down the traditional wall between FBI and intelligence agents.
Referring to Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., Ashcroft said, "As Edwards explained, 'We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing,' Ashcroft told a domestic preparedness conference last month.
Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
