Slashdot Mirror

• THE ARRIVAL OF SECRET LAW
• TSA THREATENS TO ARREST LEAKERS
• SUPPORT SECRECY NEWS

THE ARRIVAL OF SECRET LAW

Last month, Helen Chenoweth-Hage attempted to board a United Airlines flight from Boise to Reno when she was pulled aside by airline personnel for additional screening, including a pat-down search for weapons or unauthorized materials.

Chenoweth-Hage, an ultra-conservative former Congresswoman (R-ID), requested a copy of the regulation that authorizes such pat-downs.

"She said she wanted to see the regulation that required the additional procedure for secondary screening and she was told that she couldn't see it," local TSA security director Julian Gonzales told the Idaho Statesman (10/10/04).

"She refused to go through additional screening [without seeing the regulation], and she was not allowed to fly," he said. "It's pretty simple."

Chenoweth-Hage wasn't seeking disclosure of the internal criteria used for screening passengers, only the legal authorization for passenger pat-downs. Why couldn't they at least let her see that? asked Statesman commentator Dan Popkey.

"Because we don't have to," Mr. Gonzales replied crisply.

"That is called 'sensitive security information.' She's not allowed to see it, nor is anyone else," he said.

Thus, in a qualitatively new development in U.S. governance, Americans can now be obligated to comply with legally-binding regulations that are unknown to them, and that indeed they are forbidden to know.

This is not some dismal Eastern European allegory. It is part of a continuing transformation of American government that is leaving it less open, less accountable and less susceptible to rational deliberation as a vehicle for change.

Harold C. Relyea once wrote an article entitled "The Coming of Secret Law" (Government Information Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 2, 1988) that electrified readers (or at least one reader) with its warning about increased executive branch reliance on secret presidential directives and related instruments.

Back in the 1980s when that article was written, secret law was still on the way. Now it is here.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service describes with welcome clarity how, by altering a few words in the Homeland Security Act, Congress "significantly broadened" the government's authority to generate "sensitive security information," including an entire system of "security directives" that are beyond public scrutiny, like the one former Rep. Chenoweth-Hage sought to examine.

The CRS report provides one analyst's perspective on how the secret regulations comport or fail to comport with constitutional rights, such as the right to travel and the right to due process. CRS does not make its reports directly available to the public, but a copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Interstate Travel: Constitutional Challenges to the Identification Requirement and Other Transportation Security Regulations," Congressional Research Service, November 4, 2004:

• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32664.pdf

Much of the CRS discussion revolves around the case of software designer and philanthropist John Gilmore, who was prevented from boarding an airline flight when he refused to present a photo ID. (A related case involving no-fly lists has been brought by the ACLU.)

"I will not show government-issued identity papers to travel in my own country," Mr. Gilmore said.

Mr. Gilmore's insistence on his right to preserve anonymity while traveling on commercial aircraft is naturally debatable -- but the government will not debate it. Instead, citing the statute on "sensitive security information," the Bush Administration says the case cannot be argued in open court.

Further

I'm not lawyer, though, and don't know the procedures around gag-ordered lawsuits. I don't know if the court's decision would be made public or not - but in some fantasy country where freedom and the Constitution matter, I'm sure it would all be public.

The so-called Patriot Act is bad, but it isn't a secret. Here's a link to the complete text. Here's another. The ACLU didn't sue to see the complete Act. We (I'm not directly involved, but I'm proud to be a card-carrying member) sued to oppose certain actions under the act. The Act makes it illegal to disclose that some actions have been taken, e.g. that a search has taken place. That's why even mentioning the actions at issue was arguably illegal and a risk for the ACLU. Here's the ACLU press release.

The ACLU also took action, initially in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request, to find out how the government has been using the Act. Here's a link to the ACLU's press releases on the initial FOIA request and subsequent activity. The ACLU has all sorts of information about the "Patriot Act" here.

The so-called Patriot Act is bad, but it isn't a secret. Here's a link to the complete text. Here's another. The ACLU didn't sue to see the complete Act. We (I'm not directly involved, but I'm proud to be a card-carrying member) sued to oppose certain actions under the act. The Act makes it illegal to disclose that some actions have been taken, e.g. that a search has taken place. That's why even mentioning the actions at issue was arguably illegal and a risk for the ACLU. Here's the ACLU press release.

The ACLU also took action, initially in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request, to find out how the government has been using the Act. Here's a link to the ACLU's press releases on the initial FOIA request and subsequent activity. The ACLU has all sorts of information about the "Patriot Act" here.

The so-called Patriot Act is bad, but it isn't a secret. Here's a link to the complete text. Here's another. The ACLU didn't sue to see the complete Act. We (I'm not directly involved, but I'm proud to be a card-carrying member) sued to oppose certain actions under the act. The Act makes it illegal to disclose that some actions have been taken, e.g. that a search has taken place. That's why even mentioning the actions at issue was arguably illegal and a risk for the ACLU. Here's the ACLU press release.

The ACLU also took action, initially in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request, to find out how the government has been using the Act. Here's a link to the ACLU's press releases on the initial FOIA request and subsequent activity. The ACLU has all sorts of information about the "Patriot Act" here.

The so-called Patriot Act is bad, but it isn't a secret. Here's a link to the complete text. Here's another. The ACLU didn't sue to see the complete Act. We (I'm not directly involved, but I'm proud to be a card-carrying member) sued to oppose certain actions under the act. The Act makes it illegal to disclose that some actions have been taken, e.g. that a search has taken place. That's why even mentioning the actions at issue was arguably illegal and a risk for the ACLU. Here's the ACLU press release.

The ACLU also took action, initially in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request, to find out how the government has been using the Act. Here's a link to the ACLU's press releases on the initial FOIA request and subsequent activity. The ACLU has all sorts of information about the "Patriot Act" here.

... as the perfect followup! I love that the consensus, at least insofar as I have read, is "oh yeah it isn't affecting me one dang bit". The ACLU is trying hard to convince you otherwise, but they're not succeeding.

A simple drug test would make more sense. I mean, if they're that concerned, just do random drug tests every few months. Sheesh.

I consider that invasion of privacy as well. It's one thing if you're going to be employed as, say, a bus driver, and your drug problem could result in lots of dead people. But for most jobs, shouldn't your performance and your relations with co-workers be the only factors taken into consideration by management? Firing someone because they were intoxicated (not nessecarily on the job) is just going way overboard.

When someone starts showing up to work an hour late, shaking and sweating, and ducks into the bathroom to shoot up, it's time to fire them. If someone wants to smoke a joint or blow a line of coke on their own time, it shouldn't be the employers business. Of coarse I also don't think it should be the federal governments business, so I'm sure some will disagree with me :)

Besides, drug testing is a poor business practice.

Um...so? Quite a lot of organizations have a much much much more restrictive scope than that!

For all you 'ALCU is an evil liberal organization' types, take a look at this .

In their own words (editing to cut unrelated material):

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic [...]

Yes, the ACLU defends freedoms - but only the ones that they think are important. So does the NRA, for that matter, but I don't hear them claim otherwise.

Reproductive choice? Since when did deciding if you want to have children or not become liberal?

The word "choice", in the context of "reproduction", almost always refers to abortion. Do you think those "Right To Choose" bumper stickers refer to a woman's right to take birth control pills? Almost noone is anti-contraceptive, but "choice" rarely refers to that. Abortion rights are pretty much the sole province of liberals. Conservatives tend to be against abortion.

Planned Parenthood? Not Liberal. %98 of their work involves women's health, STD prevention and education, and reproductive education.

I suspect that 98% is a bit high. At any rate, much of the rest goes toward performing abortions or lobbying for the right to do so.

Feminism? When did sexual equality become a "liberal" agenda item. I thought it was an ammendment to the constitution.

Most conservatives (all that I personally know, anyway) believe in equality between the sexes. To many conservatives, feminism goes beyond "women are equal" and into "women are inherently superior". To them, this is as blatantly wrong as the idea that men are inherently superior. No, sexual equality is not an amendment, although an attempt to make it so failed in the late 70s / early 80s.

So... I guess your saying conservatism means giving up your rights and freedoms, losing control over your reproductive organs, and keeping females locked barefoot and pregant in the kitchen?

That is an utterly bizarre take on conservative beliefs. If many non-conservatives share your misunderstanding, then I fear we'll never be able to work together.

If the search of an ISP's drives is going to take more than a few hours, I believe it's standard procedure to seize the drives, copy them, and return them. I think the only time limitation is up to whoever signs the warrant. Parent is correct. They could easily just carnivore the upstream, and if they really needed to get at the server for traffic analysis, they'd just write themselves a warrant and do a black bag job per the PATRIOT Act Sec. 215. Why would you raid a place and alert the world to your presence if the goal is to monitor ongoing traffic? I don't have a lot of confidence in our government, but they aren't that stupid. (BTW, Section 215 does not sunset... ever! Ahhh crap, does that mean I'm now a rambling paranoid too...)

That some Americans think that the 1st Amendment might not be about political speech is testimony to just how corrupt our understanding of freedom and our own constitution has become during the 20th century (and now into the 21st). The ACLU and other so called lovers of liberty will spend money and make much hue and cry defending pornography and the right of teenagers to wear t-shirts to school sporting every kind of profanity; but when an issue threatening the very fabric of liberty in the US comes along, there comes no worthwhile comment. It's sad, really.

Anyone who wonders whether idea of the 1st Amendment covers political speech need look no further than the writings of one of the great jurists in American history: Joseph Story. Try A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States.

Story was a US Supreme Court justice from 1811-1845 and his commentaries on the Constitution were the first, most influencial work of its kind. Regarding the reasoning behind the 1st Amendment I quote from the book:

[The first amendment] is in fact designed to guard against those abuses of power, by which, in some foreign governments, men are not permitted to speak upon political subjects, or to write or publish anything without the express license of the government for that purpose.

(The above quote is italicized in the original.)

Nowadays, under the influence of Marxian scholarship, all sorts of "interpretations" of the Constitution have taken hold. What we risk is a gross equivocation that encourages people to think they are guaranteed all sorts of rights, when in fact any meaningful interpretation of these rights has been supplanted. What we risk is a United States in name only.

That the United States government should regulate political speech is arguably the most un-American notion that could possibly take hold -- excepting of course all the other "notions" that will inevitably follow from the infringement of the right to speak and write on political topics.

I urge everyone: don't remain ignorant on what the Constitution protects and what this country is supposed to be about. The only thing that can maintain the integrity of the US (or rebuild it) is people committed to a vigilant guarding and tireless espousing of the ideals on which this country was founded.

This one? Or did he change his mind? He scores less than 50% on the ACLU's test.

From the story: "How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"

It isn't different. The driver's license name is the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction. 2) The "Patriot" Act, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of laws that most congress people passed without reading. And, 3) The "Peacekeeper" Missile, which tries to give people the idea that a nuclear weapon keeps the peace.

This kind of lying takes advantage of the fact that most U.S. citizens have to trust their government because they simply don't have time to understand what their government is doing.

Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another.

Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Have a quick look at the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that try to tell you a little about U.S. goverment corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. If you don't read about the subjects mentioned, you are not informed. If you don't like the books listed, pick your own.

Even though most people simply don't have time to understand their government, it is still amazing how much distrust U.S. citizens have of their government, and yet they don't take control.

There is good reason not to trust a more efficient national driver's license, because it would be used by the government to suppress political dissent. For example, see the New York Times article, F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies. Here's a quote: "Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes." There are many people whose jobs depend on their ability to fly. They may be forced to stop any analysis of government activity if they are harassed when they try to fly.

That article discusses a few of the other abuses. If you didn't like the Vietnam War, and demonstrated against it, the FBI would go to your neighbors and friends and "investigate" you. Merely the investigation caused enough fear to discourage most people; they could not afford to lose friends and the support of neighbors. People would think, "If someone is being investigated, that person must have done something wrong."

(Note that you can read that article at the New York Times web site, but only under extremely adversarial conditions. You can pay more than the entire cost of the newspaper in which the article was originally printed. Or, you can get a discount under plans which cause you to lose your money in a short time if you don't use the plans quickly enough. No one should underestimate the self-destructive rapacity of managers of ad-supported media.)

Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. The U.S. government is only trying to make the data gathering more efficient. The fundamental problem is not whether or not a national ID card is a good idea, the problem is that, although the U.S. government functions well in many ways, the government is corrupt in many other ways.

If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

Not quite. They pick and choose the bits of it they like.

Given that Rackspace seemed reasonably communicative about the Swiss Secret Service issue, I wonder if the "no comment" implies some invocation of the Patriot Act.

:w

I don't think you can claim the Patriot Act decision last week says anything about the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, since the Supreme Court isn't the court that handed that decision down.

The ruling you're probably alluding to, Doe v. Ashcroft , has not yet reached the Supreme Court. The decision reported in the news last week was handed down by Judge Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

If the government chooses to appeal, it must first bring its case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the 2nd Circuit is a geographical division that includes New York.) The loser there can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case - it has thousands of petitions and can only hear a few dozen each term.

If, as in the do-not-call case, the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the case (denies cert), the decision of the lower court stands. This shouldn't be read as an affirmative decision of the Court to favor one side of the issue or not, just a deference to the judgment of the circuit courts coupled with an inability to hear every case that goes up.

EFF decided on its own not to participate in the government blacklist. The ACLU made the same decision.

Volokh is right, it is the Reagan era law, the PA enters here only tangentially. Still the law stinks to high heaven.

As codified FBI can demand telecom (example demand letter here) records on its own i.e. w/o going to courts.

Volokh argues that since the recipient of any such FBI request can contest it in courts, everything is nice and dandy, i.e. the law is constitutional.

That's BS. If that was true, we could stop requiring judicially issued warrants and permit police/fbi to do searches and seizures at their discretion. Per Volokh that would be constitutional because you can always go to courts and contest it post facto. No self-respecting democracy would allow it.

Furthermore, the law allows FBI to issue permanent administrative gag orders to the recipient. The judge found it "previous restrain". Most rational people would concur.

I'm sorry, but the fact that a law entitled "USA PATRIOT Act" passed the Senate almost unanimously, just 45 days after a major terrorist attack on US soil, with NO discussion or debate, does not strike you as un-democratic?

Thankfully ONE of our senators, Russ Feingold (D-WI), actually has a clue.

I, for one, do NOT believe that the USA PATRIOT Act has stopped ANY terrorist attack, anymore than the No-Child Left Behind Act. After all, we haven't had any terrorist attacks since NCLB passed, right? Repeat after me: Correlation != Causation.

The failures that led to 9/11, as I understand them, were not from a lack of power or authority by intelligence agencies. It was due to poor communication and poor management. The "war on terror" is, IMHO, the new "war on drugs". It's an Orwellian war - never-ending war on a faceless enemy that you must support or else you are unpatriotic.

Are terrorists out there? Yes. Not all of them are hail from Saudi Arab^H^H^HIraq. Some are American citizens (McVeigh, for one. And anyone remember the Unabomber?) Will giving up our essential freedoms protect us from the terrorists? No. I don't feel any safer on an airplane now that I know no one on board has a tweezers, nail clips, or cuticle scissors. I don't feel safer knowing the the FBI can demand my library reservations, financial records, and health history, all without my knowledge (secret searches), with no judicial oversight. If you think I'm exaggerating, I suggest you read up a bit.

But the terrorists are really out to get us, folks. They tell us every day, and they are not kidding.

So who are we fighting again? The Eurasians or Eastasians?

Re:Civil Liberties vs. Constitutional Rights (Score:2)

the ACLU fights for the freedom of speech. Period.

No less an authority than G. Robert Blakely, the Notre Dame law professor who wrote RICO, warns that applying it to protesters will have a chilling effect on speech. "Everybody who loves the First Amendment has got to sleep uneasily tonight," he said after the verdict.

And I think it's also likely to lose some of its credibility in future cases where it tries to defend potentially harmful speech. True, they might reasonably argue that there's a difference between the speech they're trying to restrict here and the speech they try to protect elsewhere. But many in the public might not buy those arguments, and might see the ACLU as being unprincipled, and as simply trying to restrict speech that hurt its favored causes while protecting speech that helps its favored causes. And the ACLU's reputation for principled defense of free speech, and the grudging admiration that this has at times earned the ACLU even from some of its opponents, is one of its most valuable assets.

Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:3, Funny)

You act as if the ACLU has an agenda that they are trying to disguise under the ploy of "Civil Liberties."

Oh, wait. They do.

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

What follows is from another site but it shows the ACLU isn't as consistant as some say they are.

Quoted text follows.

Explaining their support for taxpayer-funded abortions, they say this:

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/Reproductiv eRights.cfm?ID=9039&c=146

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?

Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

Yet when they describe their opposition to school vouchers, they say this:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=10778&c=140

School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree.

What follows is from another site but it shows the ACLU isn't as consistant as some say they are.

Quoted text follows.

Explaining their support for taxpayer-funded abortions, they say this:

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/Reproductiv eRights.cfm?ID=9039&c=146

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?

Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

Yet when they describe their opposition to school vouchers, they say this:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=10778&c=140

School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree.

The ACLU also has a site set up for reading more about what's involved and for faxing your petition - ACLU

It almost seems they didn't even read the thing.

*gasp!* Say it isn't so! :-P
U.S. legislatures sometimes (dare I say frequently?) vote or comment on bills within the United States that they have not read, so I find it to be of no surprise that they would not take to time to read a bill for/from any other country. reference: the U.S. Patriot Act. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12126&c=207

As for pot, I do not use the stuff; it's not my bag (pun intended). One argument, I suppose, is that pot leads to other drugs in addition to impairing judgment and abilities. My brother has been smoking pot for about 3 decades now. He has never gotten into other drugs, and has a professional degree. Perhaps it depends on circumstances. At any rate, I think that we would be better off going after the real organized crime - the big growers, the big dealers - and take them down. It's a waste of time and resources to be nickel and diming the small stuff.

The idea that people would actually keep it in their own homes is not realistic, though. Look at alcohol. You can drink it; it's legal - just stay off the roads. Does that stop people from doing it? No. Drunk drivers kill so many people each year. The hard part is that we have already learned that prohibition doesn't work, either. So, I believe that the goal is to target the source. It's a tough call.

I think that more or less, the Middle East is a medieval culture with the dangerous mix of having access to 20th and 21st century technology and weapons. I am sure that my saying "medieval" may be a controversial point in and of itself, but I say that given the Middle East people's willingness to inflict such incredible cruelty even to their own people like beheading, cutting of limbs, and so on. They are willing to mass murder all for the sake of religious principle.

You could argue that the U.S. has done some terrible things. That would be true. The difference is that we recognize our mistakes and learn from them. We will never use nuclear weapons as a first strike. We no longer use, manufacture, or store chemical and biological weapons. From the days of WWI, WWII, Korea, and even as recently as Vietnam, the militarily no longer targets civilians deliberately. Consider the invasion. Whether you agree with the justification or not, the military did a nice job of disciplined strikes. There were some accidents, but that happens. By and large, they did a fantastic good job at striking only targets of interest, leaving buildings even net door virtually undamaged.

I believe that one of the largest tragedies of 9/11 aside of the loss of life from so many victims was the assault on our civil liberties from our own government that soon followed. Part of my issue with the Patriot Act is that it broadened law enforcement agencies without a clear set of boundaries or checks and balances. For example, the so-called war on drugs is claiming some victories with the smuggling of pot into the U.S. from Canada thanks to provisions of the Patriot Act. Identity theft bloodhounds are looking to benefit from information the U.S. gathers from passenger flight data. You see, law enforcement officials long for sweeping powers. This is their ticket. If they have someone that they think is really, really bad, then all they need to do is create an abstract link to terrorism, and then they have all the power that they need.

Is any of this related to Linux? No, not in any direct way. Except, as I mentioned earlier is that the community of Linux is made up of people from all over the world: all types of religions (including those people who prefer the absence of), all types of cultures, and so on. We don't waste our time fighting amongst ourselves for the most part. Instead, we celebrate and share something that we have in common: Linux. Unfortunately, I think that it

Do me a favor- quit your job. I'm tired of paying you with my taxes and everyone else with what little income I have left.

Sheesh.

No, it isn't. Is it? What institute, body, or power exists to uphold this right? Who bestowed this right?

This is a quote from the ACLU site...

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right.

And I found this link that says Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis made the following declaration in 1928...

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect. Every violation of the right to privacy must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I presume that even though it isn't stated straighforwardly, the combination of laws as interpreted by the courts gives the right to privacy.

The ACLU and the Cato Institute are both fighting this. When you find both of those organizations on the same side, you know something bad is going on.

But the flag fringe issue is bogus.

Here's what scares me: all of the money rapidly being poured into surveillance today is creating an industry that will (obviously) lobby for more and more surveillance tomorrow. I don't see our freedoms stabilizing; I see the emergence of a business model that relies on stripping away our privacy.

And yes, I know that privacy has been eroding for a while, but it feels like it's getting much worse, much faster, now.

More scariness in Emerging 'Surveillance-Industrial Complex' Is Turbo-Charging Government Monitoring, ACLU Warns in New Report.

Generalties *are* relevant, however.

Check out the 8 worst internet laws. Of the 93 worst offenders, only 18 were democrats. Only 2 were in the top 25.

If you really want to show that you want fewer of them, go vote Libertarian (assuming that you support all forms of deregulation among businesses and want to work for the "eventual repeal of all taxes" (if I'm remembering the official party platform plank's wording properly) as well). If you want to show that you want fewer of them and don't support that other stuff, vote Green.

However, if you want to *make* there be fewer of them, go vote Democrat. Me? I'm a pragmatist. You're free to be idealists if you so choose.

I don't remember any public schools in the past thirty years requiring students to get down and pray

Ah, but the ACLU does. Check out the "Greatest Hits".

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

Take, for example, the way they will defend NAMBLA, "the national man-boy love association" in court

To be precise, in at least one case what the ACLU did was to defend it against a lawsuit asserting that "[b]y its publications, meetings and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children (paragraph 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, "promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material. (paragraph 26), and that this induced Charles Jaynes to become a homosexual pedophile and to murder and mutilate a 10-year-old boy.

In that case, at least, the ACLU is not defending "legalizing the molestation of young boys", they're defending NAMBLA against the charge that they incited somebody to murder and torture a young boy.

I'll point you to their statement on defending the free speech of unpopular organizations, in which they say that the Massachusetts affiliate of the ACLU "does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children" (and does not advocate trading arms for hostages, either, even though they defended Oliver North's right to refuse to testify during the Iran-Contra investigations).

but won't defend anyone persecuted for faith.

Okay, does suing a public park authority to prevent them from prohibiting baptisms in the park count? How about suing a city to prevent them from requiring a Muslim woman to wear a bathing suit in order to accompany her children at a municipal swimming pool? Or appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a conviction of a Catholic man punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that didn't allow him to keep his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book, without allowing him to choose a program that would allow him to remain a Catholic?

Check out the religious discrimination and religious freedom sections of the ACLU Web site.

What's wrong with Ashcroft?
Ashcroft crucified as racist, but the record shows otherwise

Of course if you follow the ACLU then Ashcroft is essentially Satan.

If we are allowed to pick and choose facts as we please, then Ashcroft is either a great man or a villian. Unfortunetly for you, after reviewing the facts, he's somewhere in between.

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

For some information, check out the ACLU's scorecard: http://scorecard.aclu.org/scoremain.html/

The you don't get the ACLU. The ACLU really doesn't care who is being wronged. They even defend the KKK as free speech is free speech no matter what anyone is saying.

I didn't find a story about anyone being arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts (although I did read it somewhere. I'll have to find it.) However, there are plenty of stories of people being arrested for the horrible crime of having an anti-Bush opinion and wanting to express it via signs, in a venue where the President might see or hear it.

The ACLU has been kind enough to chronicle some examples.

In addition for those who are not apt to believe anything you hear from the ACLU perhaps an article from the December 15 American Conservative Magazine might convince you.

Unfortunately, he violations of free speech are real. This is not a bunch of people in the midst of a "tin-hat" moment. And if you think it will get any better with another four years of this fool Bush you're having a "head in the sand" moment.

Rainey

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation and is demanding records regarding Internet postings by critics of the Bush administration that list the names of Republican delegates and urge protesters to give them an unwelcome reception in New York City.

...

The Indy Media site is run by the NYC Independent Media Center, which describes itself as a grass-roots group committed to using media tools "for promoting social and economic justice in the New York City area." The site includes several lists containing the names of many delegates to the Republican convention, along with e-mail addresses, phone numbers and the hotels where some were expected to stay, as well as links to a site called rncdelegates.com. Most of the lists were posted anonymously or by demonstrators calling themselves the RNC Delegates Working Group. One list includes more than 2,200 delegates, or nearly half the expected total. In publicizing the information, organizers said in a posting that they were trying to supply groups opposed to the Republican National Committee "with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit."

The story goes on to point out that the ACLU is upset about the investigation, and that the federal courts have taken a very narrow view of what is not protected speech in similar cases:

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Calyx, the Internet service provider, said they were aware of no postings that encouraged violence or intimidation of Republican delegates, and they said the site contained political dialogue and information that was protected by the First Amendment.

"We can't see any legitimate purpose behind this investigation, and it looks to us like another attempt to repress legitimate political dissent," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

The obvious although not perfect analogy is the anti-abortion activist web site controversy of a few years ago, that the article also mentions:

Federal courts have traditionally set a high bar in deciding what constitutes threatening speech that goes beyond First Amendment protections, saying the threat of lawlessness must be specific and imminent.

In one significant case, a jury in Oregon ordered a group of anti-abortion activists to pay $109 million in damages after posting an Old West-style wanted poster, portraying named abortion doctors as "baby butchers." But an appellate court reversed the award. Parts of the case are pending.

The ACLU in that case took the position that this was not constitutionally protected free speech:

We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion. Many Americans disagree about the wisdom and morality of abortion. But violence and the threat of violence against providers of abortion services should not be allowed to determine the outcome of that debate.

To their credit, the ACLU also argued that "that the defendants' intent to threaten the abortion providers must also be proven...."

The "Nuremberg Files" site

Actually, the ACLU would most definitely step in and voice their opinion. Considering they supported Rush Limbaugh when his privacy was violated in acquiring his medical records.

I wonder if he bashed the ACLU the day they defended his rights...

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation and is demanding records regarding Internet postings by critics of the Bush administration that list the names of Republican delegates and urge protesters to give them an unwelcome reception in New York City.

...

The Indy Media site is run by the NYC Independent Media Center, which describes itself as a grass-roots group committed to using media tools "for promoting social and economic justice in the New York City area." The site includes several lists containing the names of many delegates to the Republican convention, along with e-mail addresses, phone numbers and the hotels where some were expected to stay, as well as links to a site called rncdelegates.com. Most of the lists were posted anonymously or by demonstrators calling themselves the RNC Delegates Working Group. One list includes more than 2,200 delegates, or nearly half the expected total. In publicizing the information, organizers said in a posting that they were trying to supply groups opposed to the Republican National Committee "with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit."

The story goes on to point out that the ACLU is upset about the investigation, and that the federal courts have taken a very narrow view of what is not protected speech in similar cases:

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Calyx, the Internet service provider, said they were aware of no postings that encouraged violence or intimidation of Republican delegates, and they said the site contained political dialogue and information that was protected by the First Amendment.

"We can't see any legitimate purpose behind this investigation, and it looks to us like another attempt to repress legitimate political dissent," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

The obvious although not perfect analogy is the anti-abortion activist web site controversy of a few years ago, that the article also mentions:

Federal courts have traditionally set a high bar in deciding what constitutes threatening speech that goes beyond First Amendment protections, saying the threat of lawlessness must be specific and imminent.

In one significant case, a jury in Oregon ordered a group of anti-abortion activists to pay $109 million in damages after posting an Old West-style wanted poster, portraying named abortion doctors as "baby butchers." But an appellate court reversed the award. Parts of the case are pending.

The ACLU in that case took the position that this was not constitutionally protected free speech:

We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion. Many Americans disagree about the wisdom and morality of abortion. But violence and the threat of violence against providers of abortion services should not be allowed to determine the outcome of that debate.

To their credit, the ACLU also argued that "that the defendants' intent to threaten the abortion providers must also be proven...."

The "Nuremberg Files" site

Nobody's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act. Name one or shut up.

The deficit as a percent of GDP is LOWER now than it was under Clinton.

It was the low bidder; what do you want - WalMart supplying our troops?

Nobody's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act. Name one or shut up.

The deficit as a percent of GDP is LOWER now than it was under Clinton.

It was the low bidder; what do you want - WalMart supplying our troops?

Personally, I'm afraid to fly. Yes, I know it's unjustified, but that is the deal with most peoples fears - they are irrational.

Sometime in my life however I'll have to fly. Honeymoon, business, something will take me in the air. But another problem I have is rage. (think Punch Drunk Love) I'm Bi-Polar, and a liberal. Enough to blacklist me from any flight.

Now, I'm not saying that I would, but I think I know what I'd want to do if this happened to me. If I had to fight with the government, especially because I did nothing, I'd want to go crazy. Not just cursing Tom Ridge out crazy either. I'm talking hijacking, shooting Homeland Security employees, and homicidal mania crazy. When faced with a huge obstacle like that many people will get just as mad as I would.

Imagine you are trying to fly to Tucson to see your daughter get married. Some guy won't let you on the plane even though you've never hurt anyone in your life. Likely the cause would be a bill you didn't pay in 1972.

What would you do? Would you ask yourself what would Jesus have done or would you get medieval on their asses?

My point? This system will make someone so mad that they will want to take revenge and hurt a lot of people in the process. People who don't have control have nothing to lose. It is that simple - people will not stick up for this "saftey" crap any longer when it stops them from seeing a dying relative or getting their job done. (BTW, why do terrorists, of any type, use terror? It is their last resort. 1984, chapter 5: the Party was invincible. ... You could only rebel against it by secret disobedience or, at most, by isolated acts of violence such as killing somebody or blowing something up. )

The worst thing is that if we get four more years of Bush he'll push this system off on trains and busses too. Next thing you'll know you won't be allowed on the highway if you didn't get a doctors check-up in the last six months.