| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html some parts of it include: Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But – and read this carefully from the new bill – 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.) Legal permanent residents (like, say, a French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus – a protection guaranteed by the Constitution – since the Civil War." The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government." Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant. The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted." Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds – even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong – would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS." Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders. Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s." American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships. The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses. And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" – stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 – would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress." |
it's rather large and sunny, fully carpeted, close to a bus stop, beer store and grocery store. and at $280 a month, think of the exchange rate! |
|
|
|
|
Whatever happened to "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? And no, I don't think that blocking traffic violates "peaceably" unless the protesters are doing it by planting mines in the streets or threatening motorists and passersby with death or harm. Wisper, how much room do you have? |
Maybe a "disturbing the peace" citation at worste would be justified by blocking traffic.... |
If only the democrats weren't such PUSSIES. or we had viable third parties. or something. |
|
Isn't it called a free assembly when people gather peacefully to protest something? Seriously? I mean, if these people are protesting the war (which is their right) in a peaceful manner, isn't that called free assembly, and therefore wouldn't this bill be re-defining what is allowed in free speech? If you are against the war and do an anti-war protest it is no longer free assembly and you therefore are a terrorist? This has been taken way too far. I don't like the word terrorist being thrown around like candy at an elementary school. The same thing was done with sexual harrassment. I remember when my sister was threatened to be put up on sexual harrassment charges from the school because some girl punched her in the face and she called her a bitch. That wasn't sexual harrassment and having a peaceful protest does NOT make you a terrorist. I don't agree with blocking streets and passage from one area to another while protesting. That is just me. I think my feelings regarding this go back to my experiences during the Rodney King riots and the things that happened there, the fears associated with it. This probably won't make sense to most of you and that is fine. I haven't really worked through it myself. All I know is that this is extreme and dissapointing. Not to mention just plain wrong. |
So, when protestors are no longer allowed to gather and express their opinions (right to free assembly, right to freedom of speech). Does that mean there will be a new revolution? perhaps another civil war? Are you ready for that possibility? I hope this war ends really damn soon... otherwise who knows what crazy bulllshit will become LAW. |
|