Our Rights And Counter-terrorism

[Section 8]

I think that there is already a thread on the PATRIOT Act, but this topic deals more with counter-terrorism in general. The PATRIOT Act is the bulk of this discussion so I will start off by posting a very good commetary on it:

"On October 26, 2001, just six weeks after the devastation on September 11, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act. Ashcroft and his cronies wasted no time in attempting to further their agenda at the expense of a traumatized nation. USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", but all that elaborate language does not succeed in hiding the dangerous nature of the document.

So just what does the Patriot Act give the Bush administration the right to do? Well, for starters, it allows the FBI to monitor everything from e-mail to medical records to library accounts, providing frightening access to once private information. They can now legally wiretap phones, break into homes and offices, and access financial records without probable cause.

The Patriot Act broadens terrorism to include "domestic terrorism" which could potentially be used to target activist groups within the country speaking out against Bush's treacherous deeds.

The Patriot Act also disregards attorney-client privilege and authorizes government surveillance of previously confidential discussions.

Immigrants can be detained indefinitely based on suspicion alone, and the Patriot Act aids the excessive amounts of deportations that are taking place.

Calling this the Patriot Act is quite a dangerous action within itself, because the implication follows: if you speak against the Patriot Act, well, you sure aren't being a good citizen in our country's time of need. When Bush labels his actions as the model of patriotism, he then classifies all dissent as un-American. While this may be comforting to him, it is actually an insult to patriotism. Protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights demonstrates a great respect for the government of this country and the rights of its citizens, and that sounds downright patriotic."

And wait there is more, now the adminastration wants to make PATRIOT II.
Heres a commentary on PATRIOT II:

"It's not over yet. Currently, the Justice Department is working on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, an extension of the Patriot Act that has been dubbed "Patriot II". Perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of this bill would grant the government the right to detain someone indefinitely without ever disclosing their identity, allowing the person to ultimately disappear. It would also broaden local police's ability to spy on "terrorist" groups, including domestic religious and political organizations. The government could take sweeping "anti-terrorist" action, like obtaining an individual's financial and library records without a warrant and allowing wiretaps without a court order. How else could this affect you? Well, if you engage in civil disobedience, the government would have the right to strip you of your citizenship! Had enough? Stop this act before it starts!"

Have fun
Shalom

[Section 8]

A pretty scary story about why the government says reading is bad:

""The FBI is here,"Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny.

"The who?" I say.

"Two FBI agents. They say you're not in trouble, they just want to talk. They want to come to the store."

I work in a small, independent bookstore, and since it's a slow Tuesday afternoon, I figure, "Sure." Someone I know must have gotten some government work, I think; hadn't my consultant friend spoken recently of getting rolled onto some government job? Background check, I think, interviewing acquaintances ... No big deal, right? Then, of course, I make a big deal about it in front of my co-workers.

"That was my mom," I tell them. "The FBI's coming for me." They laugh; it's a good joke, especially when the FBI actually shows up. They are not the bogeymen I had been expecting. They're dressed casually, they speak familiarly, but they are big. The one in front stands close to 7 feet, and you can tell his partner is built like a bulldog under his baggy shirt and shorts.

"You Marc Schultz?" asks the tall one. He shows me his badge, introduces himself as Special Agent Clay Trippi. After assuring me that I'm not in trouble, he asks if there is someplace we can sit down and talk. We head back to Reference, where a table and chairs are set up. We sit down, and I'm again informed that I am not in trouble.

Then, Agent Trippi asks, "Do you drive a black Nissan Altima?" And I realize this meeting is not about a friend. Despite their reassurances, and despite the fact that I haven't committed any federal offenses (that I know of), I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm in trouble.

They ask me if I was driving my car on Saturday, and I say, reasonably sure, that I was. They ask me where I went, and I struggle for a moment to remember Saturday. I make a lame joke about how the days run together when you're underemployed. They smile politely. Was I at work on Saturday? I think so.

"Were you at the Caribou Coffee on Powers Ferry?" asks Agent Trippi. That's where I get my coffee before work, and so I tell him yes, probably, just before remembering Saturday: Harry Potter day, opening early, in at 8:30.

So I would have been at Caribou Coffee that Saturday, getting my small coffee, room for cream. This information seems to please the agents.

"Did you notice anything unusual, anyone worth commenting on?" OK, I think. It's the unusual guy they want, not me. I think hard, wondering if it was Saturday I saw the guy in the really cool reclining wheelchair, the guy who struck me as a potential James Bondian supervillain, but no: That was Monday.

Then they ask if I carried anything into the shop -- and we're back to me.

My mind races. I think: a bomb? A knife? A balloon filled with narcotics? But no. I don't own any of those things. "Sunglasses," I say. "Maybe my cell phone?"

Not the right answer. I'm nervous now, wondering how I must look: average, mid-20s, unassuming retail employee. What could I have possibly been carrying?

Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."

You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?

The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"

Then it occurs to me: I was reading. It was an article my dad had printed off the Web. I remember carrying it into Caribou with me, reading it in line, and then while stirring cream into my coffee. I remember bringing it with me to the store, finishing it before we opened. I can't remember what the article was about, but I'm sure it was some kind of left-wing editorial, the kind that never fails to incite me to anger and despair over the state of the country.

I tell them all this, but they want specifics: the title of the article, the author, some kind of synopsis, but I can't help them -- I read so much of this stuff.

"Do you still have the article?" Probably not, but I suggest we check behind the counter. When that doesn't pan out, I have the bright idea to call my dad at work, see if he can remember. Of course, he can't put together a coherent sentence after I tell him the FBI are at the store, questioning me.

"The FBI?" he keeps asking. Eventually I get him off the phone, and suggest it may be in my car. They follow me out to the parking lot, where Trippi asks me if there's anything in the car he should know about.

"Weapons, drugs? It's not a problem if you do, but if you don't tell me and then I find something, that's going to be a problem." I assure him there's nothing in my car, coming very close to quoting Rudy Ray Moore in Dolemite: "There's nothin' in my trunk, man."

The excitement of the questioning -- the interrogation -- has made me just a little bit giddy. I almost laugh out loud when they ask me to pop my trunk.

There's nothing in my car, of course. I keep looking anyway, while telling them it was probably some kind of what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it article about the buildup to Gulf War II. Trippi nods, unsatisfied. I turn up some papers from the University of Georgia, where I'm about to begin as a grad student. He asks me what I'm going to study.

"Journalism," I say. As I duck back into the car, I hear Agent Trippi informing his partner, "He's going to UGA for journalism" in a way that makes me wonder whether that counts against me.

Back in the store, Trippi gives me his card and tells me to call him if I remember anything. After he's gone, I call my dad back to see if he has calmed down, maybe come up with a name. We retrace some steps together, figure out the article was Hal Crowther's "Weapons of Mass Stupidity" from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa. It comes back to me then, this scathing screed focusing on the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch -- really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11. So I call the number on the card, leave a message with the name, author and origin of the column, and ask him to call me if he has any more questions.

To tell the truth, I'm kind of anxious to hear back from the FBI, if only for the chance to ask why anyone would find media criticism suspicious, or if maybe the sight of a dark, bearded man reading in public is itself enough to strike fear in the heart of a patriotic citizen.

My co-worker, Craig, says that we should probably be thankful the FBI takes these things seriously; I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees.

Special Agent Trippi didn't return calls from CL. But Special Agent Joe Parris, Atlanta field office spokesman, stressed that specific FBI investigations are confidential. He wouldn't confirm or deny the Schultz interview.

"In this post-911 era, it is the absolute responsibility of the FBI to follow through on any tips of potential terrorist activity," Parris says. "Are people going to take exception and be inconvenienced by this at times? Oh, yeah. ... A certain amount of convenience is going to be offset by an increase in security."

If this doesn't scare youl, it should.
(sorry about the long posts, but what's said should be said)

Have fun
Shalom

[Geoff332]

Links to Shultz's original article and Weapons of Mass Stupidity. I would be a little careful about copying copyrighted text verbatim -- it might get you (or Sean) into some legal trouble. If you're citing web sources, I would suggest linking to them.

[G. Adams]

Everytime I read about the worry caused by American rights being stood all over and how bad this is, in UK press, I wonder why no-one even mentions why we in Britain don't have ANY real rights. Nothing entrenched like the US Bill of Rights. Our Bill of Rights has been so undermined over the years it means nothing. The Human Rights Act of 2000 that makes the European Convention on Human Rights can be overturned overnight should the government want to, though it wouldn't need to because just about everything on the list has the same clause at the end of it

'There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'

making them worthless.

And our secret services have been jumping on the rights of activists and left wingers with glee for decades. The government recently revealed that during the 70's that MI5 had compiled blacklists of left wingers that were distributed to employers, and these people were never employed again through the militant union years.

[Sean]

Originally posted by G. Adams@09-22-2003 08:45 PM Everytime I read about the worry caused by American rights being stood all over and how bad this is, in UK press, I wonder why no-one even mentions why we in Britain don't have ANY real rights. Nothing entrenched like the US Bill of Rights. Our Bill of Rights has been so undermined over the years it means nothing. The Human Rights Act of 2000 that makes the European Convention on Human Rights can be overturned overnight should the government want to, though it wouldn't need to because just about everything on the list has the same clause at the end of it 'There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others' making them worthless. And our secret services have been jumping on the rights of activists and left wingers with glee for decades. The government recently revealed that during the 70's that MI5 had compiled blacklists of left wingers that were distributed to employers, and these people were never employed again through the militant union years.

yes, be careful section8, I am alright Geoff, the contract when you registered has got me covered.

[PatrickHenry]

In my opinion, Freedom(as defined by the Amendments to the US Constitution) is more important than the War against Terror. In fact, I regard the Terror War as a pretext for the War on Freedom. I think authoritarians have decided Americans are TOO FREE. They have decided to restrict our freedom by means of frightening the public into a security stampede. The public clamors for "security" and ends up losing their freedom. The terrorists allegedly hate our freedom too, according to GW Bush. So I guess the authorities and the terrorists are thrusting at the same fundamental issue...Americans are too free.(Irony)

[bishop]

well... the war against terror (twat for short) is supposedly all about protecting freedom. i can see why it would be more important for authorities to actively spy - for the sole purpose of getting intelligence on terrorists. the sad reality is that they do a whole lot more of that - namely they harass innocent people and make them feel like they're in trouble.. i haven't heard jack as far as them going after any of these fascist bushistas... nope, just liberals who happen to read anti-bush material. and what about the fcc? watching the pitt vs. notre dame game yesterday, they interviewed pitt's winning qb and he dropped the f-bomb in the heat of the moment.. i wonder if they'll sue the pants off them now for their naughty language...

[The Dunedan]

Pat:
I'm in total agreement. Liberty or Death, as far as I'm concerned.

Gerry:
I've tried to make that precise point to several of your erstwhile countrymen on various occaisions; they dismiss the distinction as irrelevant. I point out the treatment of various Oglaigh na hEirann POW's under BritGov rule, and they dismiss it as a nessescary evil; even the rape of Bernie McAlisky and the other Cumman na mBahn women. It truly frightens me on some levels.

[rmnunez]

I'm intrigued by the notion some may feel enhanced state power over individuals in pursuit of terrorism could or has been translated into control over and repression of individuals on purely ideological bases. I differentiate between terrorism and expressive conduct, does the Patriot Act somehow merge these in another interpretation?

[PatrickHenry]

USA PATRIOT is not the only issue. It is also about state secrecy, propaganda and media manipulation of the public's orientation, abuse of police powers for political purposes, fraud in the name of good government and many other issues indicting the rapid diminishment of the erstwhile Republic. Meanwhile the Feds ignore various real threats to focus on their global stategy. Those who follow the debate can see it. Those who won't see it are ideologically blinded.

Counter-terrorism is a ruse, and OBL has achieved record success as the guy the Muslim street respects. The loser is the common citizen of the Empire formerly known as a constitutionally limited republic...

[PatrickHenry]

The FedGov has proven its useless anti-democratic nature in the Valerie Plame affair. While claiming to be combating terror and using terror as a pretext for siezing Iraq, it simultaneously "leaks" classified information on the identity of an anti-terror CIA specialist to its media flacks. Then it reluctantly investigates the leaks from within. However, it is common knowledge that the outing of Ms. Plame was in retaliation for her husband going public with the BushCo. lie about uranium from Niger to Saddam. Why doesn't Justice use the USA PATRIOT Act to dragoon testimony from the shills who were so cooperative with BushCo before the savage attack on Iraq? And still the public buys their tissue-thin excuses for blood. Who Profits? Who pays?

When are we, the public, going to recognize that "we" as used by the media means the foreign policy elite who profit from war? Military contractors and the brass are making out well under the current regime, while the rest of us are impoverished by excess taxation and outlandish borrowing leading to inflation and loss of our savings...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...tml?oref=login
or truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040705Z.shtml

-- The federal prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name says his work is complete except for one large omission: hearing from two reporters who are fighting a court order to answer questions under oath. Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said the refusal of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times to divulge their sources has stalled his probe.

[Trotsky]

Quote by: The Dunedan Pat: I'm in total agreement. Liberty or Death, as far as I'm concerned. Gerry: I've tried to make that precise point to several of your erstwhile countrymen on various occaisions; they dismiss the distinction as irrelevant. I point out the treatment of various Oglaigh na hEirann POW's under BritGov rule, and they dismiss it as a nessescary evil; even the rape of Bernie McAlisky and the other Cumman na mBahn women. It truly frightens me on some levels.

Please mate don't soil the good name of Oglaigh na hEireann by comparing IRA terrorists/freedom fighters whatever your persuasion to the fine men and women of the Irish armed forces. The IRA may attempt to use the official name of the Irish Army but the Irish Constitution lays out the law regarding this. Also Cumman na mBhan was little more than a cover for women members of the IRA.