You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #42: The first piece [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. The first piece
I wrote included tons of additional criminal evidence, including the following paragraph about the Patriot Act:

October 2001 - Distracted by wall-to-wall coverage of Afghanistan and without Congressional debate, hearings, or public review, the Patriot Act was ram-rodded into law so quickly that many in Congress reacted with a knee-jerk vote of approval without reading the summaries, let alone the fine print. These are some of its dangerous provisions:

Non-citizens can be detained and deported if they provide "assistance" for lawful activities of any group the government chooses to call a terrorist organization. Under this provision the secretary of state can designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity as a terrorist organization. Representative Patsy Mink notes that - in theory - supporters of Greenpeace could now be convicted for supporting terrorism.

Immigrants can be detained indefinitely, even if they are found to not have any links to terrorism. They can be detained indefinitely for immigration violations or if the attorney general decides their activities pose a danger to national security. They never need to be given a trial or even a hearing on their status.

Internet service providers can be ordered to reveal the web sites and e-mail addresses that a suspect has communicated to or visited. The FBI need only inform a judge that the information is relevant to an investigation.

It "lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess." It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA's mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US.

Financial institutions are encouraged to disclose possible violations of law or "suspicious activities" by any client. The institution is prohibited from notifying the person involved that it made such a report. The term "suspicious" is not defined, so it is up to the financial institutions to determine when to send such a report.

Federal agents can easily obtain warrants to review a library patron's reading and computer habits (see also January 2002).

The government can refuse to reveal how evidence is collected against a suspected terrorist defendant.

Essentially, due process was relinquished, criminal investigations became intertwined with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments were violated.

Unfortunately, the first piece was 20 pages long and too intimidating a tome for most people to tackle. So I shortened it to the excerpt posted above.

I don't know exactly when the Patriot Act was first hatched, but it's obvious that it was waiting in the wings long before 911.

While I'm at it, let me include another "tidbit" for October 2001:

Disturbingly, "there are indications that nukes may have been dropped on Afghanistan. According to Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center, tests conducted on Afghan civilians suggest that:

"Some form of uranium weapon had been used...The results were astounding:
the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium
isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans
tested in 1999."

"The results also confirmed that the toxic radiation was not attributable to
heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU was used abundantly during
Gulf War I), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination."

Apparently the level of censure associated with weapons of mass destruction is directly contingent upon who is using them.

I'm thinking of writing a short piece that addresses the statement above.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC