-----Original Message-----
From: Philosophy and Psychology of Cyberspace
[mailto:CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Jon Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 3:03 PM
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: [Fwd:''High treason in the U.S. government'']
this does seem worse than what the government tried to pass through here
jon
>Lysander Zimmerman wrote:
> http://www.yellowtimes.com/article.php?sid=444
> ''High treason in the U.S. government''
>
> By Doreen Miller
>
> YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
>
> (YellowTimes.org) Q: Just who is a terrorist?
> A: Anyone (non-U.S. citizen or U.S. citizen alike) Attorney General
Ashcroft
> designates as one.
>
> Q: On what evidence can Ashcroft designate someone as a terrorist?
> A: Mere suspicion and hearsay.
>
> Q: What legal rights and Constitutional protections does someone
detained on
> the grounds of being a suspected terrorist have?
> A: Next to none.
> It may be difficult for some hard-core, patriotic Americans to believe
the
> veracity of the preceding question and answer series, but the answers
to the
> questions are based upon the implications and dangerous ramifications
of the
> USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) that was passed last October by so-called
> congressional representatives who never bothered to read or debate it.
>
> It slipped through at the midnight hour under the cover of darkness,
voted
> on by men and women engulfed in a terrifying atmosphere of shock,
fear, mass
> media hysteria, and suspiciously targeted anthrax mailings.
>
> U.S. government officials would have us believe that this 342-page,
> complexly nuanced document was allegedly crafted after September 11 in
the
> time span of a little over a month. To accomplish this feat would have
> required the in-depth study of fifteen other lengthy acts and statutes
which
> it modifies and amends.
>
> The act's extremely clever yet highly misleading acronym USA PATRIOT,
which
> stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools
> Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," is an obvious attempt
to
> intimidate and brand as "unpatriotic" and treasonous anyone who might
dare
> to question its alarmingly overreaching provisions.
>
> In light of the egregious evisceration of the Bill of Rights that this
law
> undertakes, those who blindly supported and signed this blatantly
> unconstitutional act into law should be collectively condemned and
charged
> for high treason to the Constitution and the people of the United
States of
> America.
>
> Careful perusal of the USAPA reveals that it defiantly and maliciously
> tramples on:
>
> * The First Amendment - the people's right to exercise freedom of
> religion, speech and peaceful assembly "to petition the Government for
a
> redress of grievances"
> * The Fourth Amendment - the right "to be secure in their persons,
> houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures"
> whereby warrants - only to be issued upon "probable cause" - must be
> specific as to place to be searched and persons or things to be seized
> * The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments - which outline the
right to
> due process - a trial by one's peers, to face one's accuser as well as
view
> the evidence against oneself, and to have an attorney
> * The Eighth Amendment - which safeguards the people against
excessive
> fines, or cruel and unusual punishment
>
> Under sections 411 and 802 in the USAPA, a terrorist is loosely
defined as
> anyone being "a representative of a foreign terrorist organization, as
> designated by the Secretary of State," and domestically, anyone
engaging in
> "activities that - involve acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation
> of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; APPEAR to
be
> intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; TO INFLUENCE
THE
> POLICY OF A GOVERNMENT BY INTIMIDATION OR COERCION..." [capitals mine]
>
> The inclusion of the word "appear" leaves interpretation of the law
wide
> open to subjectivity and personal whim, as anyone can rightfully claim
> something "appears" to be intended for a particular purpose. Note also
that
> our first amendment right to gather in protest against what we may see
as
> unjust government policies could easily fall under the concept of
> "influencing" government policy by "intimidation or coercion."
>
> Anyone participating in activist groups such as Greenpeace, Earth
Liberation
> Front, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or in protests
like the
> 1999 demonstration in Seattle against the WTO could find himself
suddenly
> stripped of his rights by the simple act of being declared a
"terrorist" in
> keeping with the definition of this law. Under section 803 of this
Act, even
> the simple act of giving food or shelter to a friend who may have been
> involved in any of the aforementioned activities could, in turn, have
you
> incriminated and branded as a "terrorist" as well.
>
> The USA Patriot Act absolutely shreds to bits the fourth amendment.
Section
> 213 permits so-called "sneak and peek" searches. Translated, that
means the
> government has the right to go into your home while you are away, copy
your
> hard drive, files, or whatever, gather and take any information or
items
> they please without ever serving you notice since "the execution of a
> warrant may have adverse effect." They can then delay serving you
notice for
> up to 90 days after the fact. These newfangled warrants can now be
issued
> for a flimsy "reasonable cause," further undermining the much more
difficult
> to achieve "probable cause" stipulation of the fourth amendment.
>
> Sections 216, 217 and 218 allow for unrestricted wiretapping, the
tracing
> and spying on email messages and internet activities of anyone
anywhere in
> the USA without the need to obtain a court order as long as "the
information
> likely to be obtained... is relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation."
> How nebulous can that get? A lawyer of any worth would be able to
argue the
> "relevance" of anything to an unspecified "ongoing criminal
investigation."
> Kiss your protection from "unreasonable searches" good-bye and say
hello to
> Big Brother USA.
>
> If you think this law applies only to foreign nationals, think again.
José
> Padilla, although by no means a model U.S.-born citizen, had his civil
> rights stripped from him this past May just by Ashcroft's uttering the
magic
> words, "enemy combatant" and "suspected terrorist." To this day, no
solid
> evidence has been produced to substantiate Ashcroft's claims - neither
bomb
> parts, nor bomb assembly instructions, nor any plans or maps of
intended
> strike areas.
>
> A "suspected terrorist," according to section 412, needs only to be
> "certified" by the Attorney General on "reasonable grounds" that he
> "believes" someone to be engaged in terrorist activities. Again, no
solid
> evidence is required, only a belief or suspicion suffices.
>
> Section 236A gives the Attorney General unprecedented powers
untouchable by
> any court, whereby he may detain a suspect in increments of up to six
months
> at a time if he believes the suspect's release would threaten national
> security, or the safety of the community or any person. "At the
Attorney
> General's discretion" [read: personal whims], "NO court shall have
> jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus, petition, or otherwise, any
such
> action or decision." [capitals mine]
>
> In other words, the Attorney General's word is sacrosanct! To give one
man
> such grave and all-encompassing power over the fate of any other
individual
> is akin to what happens in fascist police states, not in a free and
openly
> democratic society.
>
> Whatever happened to one's right to face one's accuser, to have a fair
trial
> by one's peers, to be allowed to view the evidence against oneself, or
to
> have an attorney?
>
> Is it not cruel and unusual punishment to be denied your civil rights,
to be
> considered guilty until you can "prove yourself innocent" - which is,
in
> fact, very difficult to do - to be held in prison on "secret evidence"
for
> months or years on end with no access to a lawyer and no chance of
defending
> yourself against false and unfounded accusations?
>
> I heard President Bush on the news a few weeks ago boasting that the
U.S.
> has so far "captured and detained over 2,400 suspected terrorists."
Yet, by
> most accounts, most people being detained were initially brought in on
minor
> violations (which in a saner world would not have resulted in
> incarceration), and have not had any terrorist-related charges brought
> against them.
>
> To this day, it is my understanding that fewer than a dozen have
actually
> been connected to any terrorist activity. Is that what a democracy
does:
> imprison whole groups of people to catch the fewer than 1 percent who
are
> actually committing criminal acts?
>
> The USA PATRIOT Act also includes under the "crimes of terrorism"
umbrella
> the destruction of property even if no one is hurt (section 808),
> telemarketing fraud (section 1011), as well as any kind of computer
hacking
> (section 217). Under the rubric of "guilt by association," this act
also
> permits the denial of entry to and even the imprisonment of "the
spouse or
> child of an inadmissible alien" who's been "designated" as a terrorist
> within the past five years (section 211).
>
> The FBI can now legitimately demand access to anyone's business,
medical,
> student, bank, library or any other personal records in order "to
protect
> against ... clandestine intelligence activities." (Sec. 501) The
Associated
> Press reported on June 25 that the FBI has been reviewing the library
> records of several hundred individuals in libraries across the nation
using
> a quick and largely secret process which is now legal under the
PATRIOT Act.
>
> Judith Krug, the American Library Association's director for
intellectual
> freedom, in a straight-forward statement is quoted as saying, "...
these
> records and information can be had with so little reason or
explanation.
> It's super secret, and anyone who wants to talk about what the FBI did
at
> their library faces prosecution. That has nothing to do with
patriotism."
>
> It seems we must now extend Ashcroft's warning about watching what we
say in
> public to include what we may read as well. It is really not such a
large
> leap to imagine our hyperparanoid government beginning to imprison
people
> suspected of "aiding and abetting the enemy" based upon their
"unpatriotic"
> ideologies and choice of reading material.
>
> The USA PATRIOT Act creates and allows for a virtual police state with
> little to no judicial oversight. We, as a nation, are literally
treading the
> razor's edge when it comes to flirting with the grave dangers inherent
in
> giving up our rights for the empty promises of "safety" and "national
> security" masquerading under the guise of a "patriotic" PATRIOT Act.
Once we
> fall off that edge, reclaiming and reinstating our rights, authority
and
> power as "WE THE PEOPLE" of this great nation might prove very
difficult.
>
> The next obvious question is: just what can the average person do?
Across
> this nation, wise and enlightened individuals have been forming groups
to
> fight the injustices that the PATRIOT Act imposes on us. Resolutions
have
> been passed unanimously by city councils in Amherst, Leverett,
Northampton,
> Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Denver, and Cambridge. Other cities and towns are
in
> the process of preparing their own resolutions and gathering
signatures on
> petitions to protect our civil liberties against the offenses of this
Act.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT