posted on September 15, 2003 07:20:45 PM
Why does this remind me of the way sexist men often speak of women's concerns - treating them like children with no respect?
Hysteria used to be a woman's disease by definition.
We are hysterical to suspect that if someone can see what we read they WILL find some way to misuse it?
When history tells us police consistantly misuse data bases for personal reasons and are disciplined for it? Using the information to act against personal enemies such as spouses they have divorced.
When not only Federal agencies but large police departments have historically kept enemies lists of people whom they did not approve because of their politics, religion or other legal behaviors?
His behavior is consistant. He has no respect for anyone not under his thumb. What a control freak.
posted on September 15, 2003 08:24:52 PM
Some of the points you have made are true. But because a few out of the whole group misuse the system do we get rid of the police and FBI all together? Not in my view. When mis-use occurs there are investigations into what happened. I believe the same thing will hold true in these areas as well.
I have heard these issues discussed many times. There are requirements that Federal judges, and our Congress be involved when these 'liberties' are taken. They are 'over seeing' the individual cases. And, imo, we need flexibility in our system if we are to have a fair chance at fighting terrorism.
The provision has drawn a legal challenge in a federal lawsuit filed in July by the American Civil Liberties Union and Islamic groups. Interesting....ACLU and Islamic groups upset that our government is working to prevent terrorism.
Again, imo, flexibility is required during these times.
posted on September 15, 2003 08:45:02 PM
Linda - when a NC man, arrest for manufacturing meth is charged with creating weapons of mass destruction turning the normal 6 month sentence into a 15 to life sentence and six months after the PA was enacted the DOJ was holding seminars on how to stretch wire tapping aspects to cover non terrorist suspects. There are people being held now today as enemy combatants and being denied their right to a lawyer because of that little tag.
There is undeniable abuse.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
posted on September 15, 2003 08:57:45 PM
fenix - I have tried to state that I know there are abuses by all agencies. We will never be able to prevent some abuses. We just continue to work to weed those who abuse out of the systems.
How I see this is they are very few and far between when compared to risk at hand. But the hysteria of what MIGHT happen IF does have a bit of hysteria to it, imo, since there are federal overseeyers and our congress to look into these cases.
But what is at stake is our homeland security. We've both read other cases where people who were planning small attacks on US soil [SF bridge] have been apprehended too, before they were allowed to carry out their destructive deeds.
The right and the left and some moderates are never going to agree on this issue. Whoever is in power will be the decision maker and the other side is going to #*!@ about it. If large numbers of our representatives agree there will be restrictions placed on these policies. If most in the 'power' positions agree we need to have the ability to hunt down these terrorists....it will continue.
posted on September 15, 2003 11:03:47 PM
If drug dealers get caught through the Patriot Act, who cares? Drug dealers ruin thousands (millions?) more lives than terrorists could ever hope to.
posted on September 16, 2003 04:58:47 AM
I can only hope that anyone who welcomes this will eventually have their own knock in the night and nameless thugs in dark faceplates stuff their butt in a van to disappear forever.
I'm sure someone will investigate it if it's a mistake.
posted on September 16, 2003 05:40:57 AM
While we're on the topic of investigations.
How come! Pressident Bush nominated Mr Kissinger above all other Americans to head the 9/11 investigation .??
ps.
How's that Aussie nut doing in Camp Guacomolie, has he seen a lawyer yet?.
Whose laws apply there.?
Back on original topic,
Why doesn't Ashcroft just burn the bad books.
Or have a 'left' and 'right' library, it may be easier to analyse peoples thoughts.
posted on September 16, 2003 06:02:23 AM“When mis-use occurs there are investigations into what happened”
What a joke! Don't you know by now that nothing is investigated in the Bush administration? What happened to the 9/11 investigation? What happened to the lies about Niger that, by the way, are still being investigated in England? When "mis-use" occurs here, it's swept under the rug.
Ashcroftian tactics are a threat to Democracy. The threat that terrorism presents pales in comparison.
Ashcroft Tries to Hide From Court Testimony
DETROIT - A lawyer for the government said Friday that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft should not be required to appear in federal court to explain why he violated a judge's gag order during a terrorism trial.
Two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen ordered Ashcroft to respond to a motion filed by lawyers for three men who were convicted in June on various charges.
"It doesn't bring any justice to my brother's memory to have a law-abiding Arab-American be detained and held without seeing a lawyer and then deported," Rice told the crowd, adding, "If you look at the law, I could be named a domestic terrorist if they found that my public protest was a risk to the national security of the United States."
"I think he needs to go into hiding or resign, because he's not doing anything for security here," commented Sonji Braxton, an insurance agent and single mom who wandered by on her lunch hour, gesturing at the police sharpshooters posted on the roof of Federal Hall. "This is America and it terrorizes me to come to work. And now they want more money to pay for this war? What about the money to educate my child? They need to pull our boys out of Iraq and bring 'em home, because everything they're doing over there just makes it worse."
During the congressional debate on John Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act, an American Civil Liberties Union fact sheet on the bill's assaults on the Bill of Rights revealed that Section 215 of the act "would grant FBI agents across the country breathtaking authority to obtain an order from the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court . . . requiring any person or business to produce any books, records, documents, or items."
This is now the law, and as I wrote last week, the FBI, armed with a warrant or subpoena from the FISA court, can demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of involvement in "international terrorism" or "clandestine activities."
Once that information is requested by the FBI, a gag order is automatically imposed, prohibiting the bookstore owners or librarians from disclosing to any other person the fact that they have received an order to produce documents.
You can't call a newspaper or a radio or television station or your representatives in Congress. You can call a lawyer, but since you didn't have any advance warning that the judge was issuing the order, your attorney can't have objected to it in court. He or she will be hearing about it for the first time from you.
I have been told that at least three of these court orders have been served, but that's all the information I was given—not the names of the bookstores or the libraries. And I can't tell you my source.
Courts do infrequently impose gag orders preceding or during trials, and newspapers sometimes successfully fight them. But never in the history of the First Amendment has any suppression of speech been so sweeping and difficult to contest as this one by Ashcroft.
For example, if a judge places a gag order on the press in a case before the court, the press can print the fact that it's been silenced, and the public will know about it.
But now, under this provision of the USA Patriot Act, how does one track what's going on? How many bookstores and libraries will have their records seized? Are any of them bookstores or libraries that you frequent? Are these court orders part of FBI fishing expeditions, like Ashcroft's mass roundups of immigrants?
And if the FBI deepens its concerns about terrorist leanings after inspecting a suspect's reading list, how can everyone else know what books will make the FBI worry about us?
As one First Amendment lawyer said to me, "What makes this so chilling is that there is no input into the process." First there is the secrecy in which the subpoenas are obtained—with only the FBI present in court. Then then there is the gag order commanding the persons receiving the subpoenas to remain silent.
Has John Ashcroft been reading Franz Kafka lately?
As I often do when Americans' freedom to read is imperiled, I called Judith Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association. I've covered, as a reporter, many cases of library censorship, and almost invariably, the beleaguered librarians have already been on the phone to Judy Krug. She is the very incarnation of the author of the First Amendment, James Madison.
When some librarians—because of community pressure or their own political views, right or left—have wanted to keep books or other material from readers, Judy has fought them. She is also the leading opponent of any attempt to curb the use of the Internet in public libraries.
As she has often said, "How can anyone involved with libraries stand up and say, 'We are going to solve problems by withholding information'?"
I called to talk with her about the FBI's new power to force libraries to disclose the titles of books that certain people are reading—and she, of course, knew all about this part of the USA Patriot Act. And the rest of it, for that matter.
She told me how any library can ask for help—without breaking the gag order and revealing a FISA visit from the FBI. The librarian can simply call her at the American Library Association in Chicago and say, "I need to talk to a lawyer," and Judy will tell her or him how to contact a First Amendment attorney.
The reason the president and the attorney general have so far been able to trade civil liberties for security is they know from the polls that they can count on extensive support. Most Americans are indeed willing to forgo parts of the Bill of Rights for safety.
Only by getting more and more Americans to realize that they themselves—not just noncitizens—can be affected by these amputations of the Bill of Rights will there be a critical mass of resistance to what Ashcroft and Bush are doing to our liberties.
Accordingly, the press ought to awaken the citizenry not only to the FBI's harvesting lists of what "suspect" Americans read, but also to the judicial silencing of bookstores and libraries that are being compelled to betray the privacy and First Amendment rights of readers.
I would welcome any advice from civil liberties lawyers on ways to counter both this provision of the USA Patriot Act and the gag order, which is the sort of silencing you'd expect of China or Iraq. Remember the repeated assurances by the president, the attorney general, and the secretary of defense that any security measures taken in the war on terrorism would be within the bounds of the Constitution?
Whose Constitution?
George Orwell said: "If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."
Today, the public doesn't even know about this provision in the strangely titled USA Patriot Act. A lot of people are still afraid to get on a plane. Is Ashcroft fearful that if people find out about his interest in what they're reading, they'll be afraid to go to libraries and bookstores—and will start asking questions about what the hell he thinks he's doing? And where is Congress?
posted on September 16, 2003 07:03:50 AM
gravid - I can only hope that anyone who welcomes this will eventually have their own knock in the night and nameless thugs in dark faceplates stuff their butt in a van to disappear forever.
Oh now gravid, I just know you aren't hoping this happens to me ....I don't think you're that type of person. It is certainly not one of my life issues that keeps me up at night worrying about it.
But, to me, it boils down to be an issue of what we judge are the odds/chances of this happening to an innocent person, like ourself. Not saying it has never happened, or never will happen to an innocent person. Just saying it's most likely what one decides when they think about whether or not this *would* ever happen to them, it is unlikely they believe they are 'at risk' of it happening to them. A most unlikely event in the life of your average American.
I'm sure someone will investigate it if it's a mistake. If we all thought alike investigations would never be necessary. Since we don't, there will be those fighting for the 'rights' of those they believe have been falsely accused and we will hear about the cases where people's rights are being violated. Aren't we already hearing some of these now? [Like the one fenix posted].
posted on September 16, 2003 07:27:23 AM
Linda - those cases are not being investigated. The only hope for the individual being held on the drug charge is that a jury can see the difference between manufacturing meth and creating chemical weapons.
The Department of Justice is not being investigated for teaching law enforcement officials how to stretch the law beyond its intended means.
No one is investigating the US governemnt hijacking the foreign accounts of a bookies with no communication with the foreign governments as they must do in non terrorism related cases. Apparently now Telemarking schemes and book making are forms of terrorism and the only person saying anything are the victims of these over reaching actions.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
George Orwell said: "If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."
Heaven help us if we are all as complacent and trusting as you are, Linda.
posted on September 16, 2003 08:28:41 AM
fenix - Linda - those cases are not being investigated. My point is that if and when enough people become concerned about these individual cases....changes will come about. Someone has obviously complained about the situation that a person has found themself in. When each case is looked into and found to be violating someone's rights, an investigations will happen.
Until then, I still hold the position that the average American *does not live in fear they are going to be the victim of a government investigation nor of having their door knocked down by their government*. And so they don't feel the threat, some of you on the left do, about losing their liberties/rights.
------------
Helen - Maybe you [or anyone else here] can give me an example of anyone YOU know, personally, who's rights have been violated by these new, anti-terrorism, laws? I doubt anyone here would be able to say they do. It's only the few and far between articles where some anti-government person is claiming this has happened to them.
It's not a matter of trusting....it's a matter of how many 'so called victims' have lost their rights and remain undefended in the US vs. the numbers who it has NEVER happened to.
posted on September 16, 2003 09:05:47 AM
Linda, you do bring up some valid points and I think it is easy to see who would be "investigated" but some people would hand over our safety in a ny minute in name "freedom"
When in actuality the only "freedom" they are protecting is those who would do harm to the US.
posted on September 16, 2003 09:14:40 AM "Helen - Maybe you [or anyone else here] can give me an example of anyone YOU know, personally, who's rights have been violated by these new, anti-terrorism, laws? I doubt anyone here would be able to say they do. It's only the few and far between articles where some anti-government person is claiming this has happened to them."
Liinda, whenever civil rights are denied to one group, our entire justice system is compromised and everyone is threatened. Besides that, you should extend your concern beyond that of yourself and your friends and neighbors.
Just because a small percentage of the total population is mistreated does not lessen the magnitude of the problem. Do you believe that those people who are denied lawyers and held without the right to even call a friend are publicized? Do you remember when over 1,000 people were detained as "suspects" in the 9/11 attacks. No names were released and they were denied access to lawyers and phone calls.
posted on September 16, 2003 09:29:24 AM
twelvepole When in actuality the only "freedom" they are protecting is those who would do harm to the US. Yes, it's sure hard to understand their position, reasoning and support for tying our governments hands while they work to find the terrorists cells here in our country. But those same people will be screaming that that same government did nothing to protect them should another terrorist attack happen on our soil.
posted on September 16, 2003 09:53:47 AM
I should add, to my post above, that most of those people arrested and held without charges for months were targeted not because they belonged to a terrorist organization but because of the color of their skin or their religious affiliation.
posted on September 16, 2003 09:56:16 AM
helen - Besides that, you should extend your concern beyond that of yourself and your friends and neighbors. Oh, but I do, developer-of-statements-I-never-make. I think my above statements are clear in that I am speaking about all US citizens....not just myself, friends and neighbors.
Just because a small percentage of the total population is mistreated does not lessen the magnitude of the problem. Since Federal judges and our congress are watching these cases, I am not, currently, concerned....as I feel MOST American's aren't.
It's those who wish to play the 'what if' or 'might happen' game that are upset.
Do you believe that those people who are denied lawyers and held without the right to even call a friend are publicized? Publicized? No, but it appears someone has some 'insider' information since we read about all these 'lack of rights' stories, 'people being taken from their homes in the middle of the night after their doors were broken down' stories you and others speak of.
[i]Do you remember when over 1,000 people were
detained as "suspects[/i]"....
Yes, I do and I did support them being held. At that time we had just been attacked and our government had much on it's plate that needed to be handled immediately. Holding those 'suspects' until each case could be reviewed was appropriate, imo. We are at war with terrorism....not an individual country. Things are very different in these times. There is no 'country' where those who wish to destroy our way of life all live, only groups of individuals. So I support giving our leaders more flexibility to root out these individuals. Unless you're found, helen, to be somehow supporting terrorists you have nothing to worry about.
But if you wish to continue playing the 'what if' games....then by all means do so.
posted on September 16, 2003 10:13:36 AM What if games?...Does that include thinking beyond the nose on your face, Linda? If so, I'm guilty and you're not.
We are at war with terrorism....not an individual country. How quickly our focus changes.
Ashcroft is moving this country in the wrong direction by undermining American principles and values. Such movement, made in the name of security should be rejected.
Helen
BTW...Your suggestion that I support terrorists reveals your stupidity.
Apparently the will of the people are of no consequence when it comes to freedom, liberty and that over all PITA, justice. "Voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything."-Stalin
posted on September 17, 2003 09:45:45 AM
Speaking of privacy issues, this is an interesting article....about EBAY Big Brother is watching you - and documenting.
Attorney Nimrod Kozlovski, author of "The Computer and the Legal Process" (in Hebrew), heard the lecture, and could not believe his ears. "The consent given in the user contract should be seen as `coerced consent,' in the absence of any opportunity to exercise free choice, with no real alternative but to agree. This is most certainly not conscious consent."
Kozlovski is part of the Information Society Project group at Yale Law School, in which he and his colleagues consider the effects of the new media on the structure of society. American law does not authorize searches of a person's home or body, he says, except in exceptional cases such as when the court authorizes a search, or when the individual gives his consent to a search.
posted on September 17, 2003 11:24:35 AM
Purging their records so they can't be requested is a temporart fix. As soon as it becomes common they will expand the law to require the seller to keep records of who bought what with no anonymous sales.
All they have to do is require the display of a federal ID to buy or sell anything and you won't be able to drive past the range of your car on one tank of gas without the government recording where you went and by cross reference who you might have met with.
....I don't think you're that type of person. It is certainly not one of my life issues that keeps me up at night worrying about it.
