Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Dr. Tiller's Murder Will Help Bring Us Patriot Act, Part Two (coming soon)

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:21 AM
Original message
How Dr. Tiller's Murder Will Help Bring Us Patriot Act, Part Two (coming soon)
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 01:19 AM by Land Shark
{Satire alert: The Specter of Patriot Act II is real, but I dont support any such thing, nor do I think anybody on this site does, or would. However, that doesnt mean the case of Dr. Tiller wont be cited as the excuse or reason for Patriot Act II, which will probably be a judicial decision, as described below, but could also be congressional.}

In terms of political blowback, the murder of Dr. Tiller presents more than the issue of an act of "terrorism" happening on "Obama's watch," a fact that will probably be cited by a smirking Dick Cheney.

The emerging CW, as NOW, Keith Olbermann and other well-respected voices are saying, that we are dealing with "domestic terrorism," and/or an assassination. Even more, as the Boulder, Colorado late termination Dr. Warren Hern stated to the Colorado Independent and the LA Times:

Im profoundly sad and Im furious and I think the American people need to understand that we have a fascist movement in this country, We dont have to invade Iraq to find terrorists. Theyre right here killing abortion doctors. Every doctor that does abortions has been under an assassination threat for decades, Hern said. The anti-abortion movement message is, Do what we tell you to do or we will kill you, and they do. This is a fascist movement. http://coloradoindependent.com/30017/late-term-abortion-doctor-decries-tiller-killing-this-is-a-fascist-movement


Hern also told the LA Times that Tiller is the fifth American doctor to be assassinated. Hern told the Los Angeles Times hes well aware of the dangers. I get messages from these people saying, Dont bother wearing a bulletproof vest, were going for a head shot. The LA Times also points out that Dr. Hern was targeted by violent extremists as well as principled opponents.

The murders totally heinous nature, especially put into the context Dr. Hern mentions, got me thinking, and an idea popped into my head (warning, satire/irony ahead):

It seems the Patriot Act is not enough to protect us from such outrageous terroristic assassinations of politically controversial persons such as the late Dr. Tiller, whether or not by a violent fascist movement. But, I dont want Patriot Act I -- much less Patriot Act II. Do you?



Lets connect the dots shall we? For example, a disgruntled (or reasonable) ex-wife says she divorced {Roeder} in 1996 because of his strong views against abortion. She says she kept their son away from his dad when he was a minor because she didn't want him to poison the boy's mind. http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-scott-roeder-suspect-tiller-53109,0,6281347.story

Shouldnt such persons with such strong views be preventively detained BEFORE THEY COMMIT HEINOUS CRIMES?

May I suggest, ever so delicately, that there but for the grace of God goes many a person of strong views on the Left as well as the Right.

You see, if the game is connect the dots and the government MUST keep us safe, then whenever the government feels they cant be 100% sure that someones level of political anger wont erupt into violence, theyll be sending the federal marshals to YOUR door.

Let me make it even more clear that the Patriot Act seemingly doesnt go far enough (as some haters of freedom will no doubt soon argue):

A Shawnee County man {who happens to be named Scott Phillip Roeder} convicted in 1996 of an explosives violation after bomb components were found in his car trunk was imprisoned this week when a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled he violated his supervised probation. http://www.cjonline.com/stories/071097/parole.html

However, as reported by the AP at the time and recently cited on Findlaw, the exclusionary rule against illegal police searches resulted in reversal on appeal:

"In 1996, Scott Roeder was charged in Topeka with criminal use of explosives for having bomb components in his car trunk and sentenced to 24 months of probation. However, his conviction was overturned on appeal the next year after a higher court said evidence against Roeder was seized by law enforcement officers during an illegal search of his car. http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/06/scott-roeder-suspected-in-george-tiller-murder-example-of-domestic-terrorism.html


The argument will be, of course, that if only the exclusionary rule of evidence didn't exist, this terrorist named Scott Roeder would have been in prison, instead of killing people in churches.

The argument against the exclusionary rule has always been that guilty go free. While this is not the case every time the exclusionary rule applies, up until lately American justice has always said that Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when trials are fair (Brady v. Maryland) and when police and prosecutors operate within the confines of the Constitution.

The big legal problem is: Just last week, the US Supreme Court reconfigured constitutional law AGAIN, and threw out the 6th Amendment rights of defendants to have their lawyer present during questioning outside of a Miranda arrest situation. In Montejo v. Louisiana, the US Supreme Court took the constitutional right, and balanced it against the states interest in, among other things, not letting the guilty go free. So, it was Bye bye 6th Amendment rights.

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, which Sotomayors presence wont improve since Breyer was in the minority, decided that punishing the guilty outweighed the prophylactic effect of upholding a Supreme Court precedent over 20 years old written by Justice Stevens. In its 3-point test for whether the US Supreme Court needs to follow precedent (stare decisis), the 3rd point is, standing alone, enough to overrule ANY precedent the US Supreme Court doesnt like:

3. Whether the decision is well-reasoned.


Dont you find, as I do, that every time one disagrees with a decision one finds it not to be well-reasoned?

I expect to see heavy pressure to eliminate the Constitutional law based exclusionary rule. When it goes, there will be no deterrent to illegal searches if the evidence isnt suppressed. What? Will the officers acting illegally be put on administrative leave or something? The late Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that even cops who lie are rarely disciplined, despite what amounts an urban legend that lying is a death penalty offense for an officer. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349169_lying29.html

We have the makings of a Patriot Act, round II, to get rid of the exclusionary rule, which has long been a target, but is also the only real barrier to massive breaches of the 4th Amendment search and seizure rights.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE DOCTRINE



If a case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds, the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine says that it should be. This doctrine was the core of the torture memos, which stretched the doctrine well beyond the breaking point in order to argue that a Congressional statute outlawing torture ought not to be read to apply to the Executive Branch because to do so would raise constitutional issues that ought to be avoided. For details, see http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060818.html

Courts are also only supposed to decide the issues as framed by the parties, not issues not briefed or litigated by the parties. Despite the fact that in Montejo v. Louisiana neither party sought to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the US Supreme Court nevertheless asked for supplemental briefing on overruling this constitutional precedent, and then overruled it. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-overruled-michigan-v-jackson/ After asking for supplemental briefing in March, the US Solicitor General weighed in with support for reversing Michigan v Jackson, an argument never made by the original parties in Montejo v Louisiana and Scalia authored the opinion you can read here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

Constitutional avoidance, my ass. On the contrary, it sure appears to me that the US Supreme Court is hunting for rights to overturn, if theyre individual rights at least, and deferring to the separation of powers of a coordinate branch all too often if its merely a governmental interest at stake instead of a right. (The government doesnt have rights only interests).

If thats not enough for you, Scalias opinion says on stare decisis that precedent can be overturned if it is not well-reasoned. So, WHAT IS THE LAW? Whatever the US Supreme Court wants it to be, when it wants it to be that, regardless of whether the parties in a case are disagreeing about that law and litigating it, or not.

WILL PATRIOT ACT II BE A JUDICIAL DECISION THROWING OUT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

When it comes to overturning the exclusionary rule, which arguably protected Scott Roeder, pro-choice advocates may find themselves in a difficult position on this issue now, given Roeders history. It will therefore be even easier for the US Supreme Court, or at the very least the court of public opinion, to move against the exclusionary rule as a whole than it was to nuke Michigan v. Jackson. If that happens, and the exclusionary rule has long been a target of the right wing, then the primary remaining deterrent to illegal searches goes out the window. (No time to discuss FISA, etc. here)

What should one do? I cant say for sure, but you deserve to know your rights, so Ill read them to you, and adlib somewhat from the familiar approved text, in the interest of on-the-ground accuracy in light of the May 26 Montejo opinion and other context:


New "Miranda/Montejo" Rights Statement, Dated 5/26/2009, with modifications Approved by the US Supreme Court via Montejo v Louisiana:

You have the right to remain silent. Is that the only right you wish to exercise? Perhaps it is, because anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, after we twist it with the help of our lawyer, the prosecutor, to enhance our case against you. Even if you can afford a lawyer prior to arrest, under Montejo, we will attempt to interrogate you without your lawyer being present. After arrest, you have the right to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, based on the States sole discretion as to the income cutoff line for indigence and the states budgetary situation, well see if we can afford one for you, or if we cant. Unless you pose a severe flight risk, we may well choose to delay arrest to interrogate you more and gather evidence for our case. When we finally arrest you, you have the right to a speedy trial. However, you and your attorney, in the unlikely event you get one, will likely sign a waiver of speedy trial rules so you can have more time to figure out how to get yourself un-screwed. In the mean-time, if you can not afford bail, you can rot in jail and work on your case from there.


ALSO REASONABLY LIKELY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THOUGH NOT EXACTLY THE CASE NOW, BARRING A CHANGE OF COURSE:

You have the right to habeas corpus, officially re-recognized in 2011, but that right (as was always the case) merely requires that the government show what substantive law authorizes us to hold you in prison without trial. To avoid the need for any habeas corpus hearing, we advise you that Tiller Patriot Act of 2009 and/or other law authorizes the preventive detention for indefinite periods of any person who poses a risk to the public safety based on statements made on the internet, in the media, or otherwise, or any other relevant evidence, that happens to cause concern for public safety either among the government or your political opponents. Attached is a highlighted copy of the statements of concern posted on Democraticunderground.com and other sites, which are sufficient to show cause under habeas corpus that the law does indeed provide for your indefinite detention.


THE ATTACHMENT TO YOUR STATEMENT OF RIGHTS (above) ALSO CONTAINS: Certain Posts from DU that sound like the quotation from todays news below, but instead substitute, oh, the proper first and last name of a Right-wing media blowhard or politician in the place of for Randall Terry

But Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, whose protests have often targeted Tiller, called the slain doctor "a mass murderer," adding: "He was an evil man -- his hands were covered with blood." http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-scott-roeder-suspect-tiller-53109,0,6281347.story


The Right wing will have little difficulty finding troublesome posts on places like DU and claiming a reasonable fear for their safety, no?



CONCLUSION:

I suggest we prosecute murderers to the full extent of the law.

I also suggest caution in playing the fear card,

I suggest caution in playing the terrorism card,

I suggest caution in playing the assassination card, or the fascist movement card,

not because these statements above cant be argued or can't be justified to be applicable, I dont say they ARE, or they ARE NOT, because, quite frankly, I feel a chill to free speech about now.

That chill doesn't come from me but from the political circumstances and recent history of our country:

That chill comes from the known, demonstrated and proven catastrophic damage to the rights of all Americans that can and already has resulted from fear and terrorism arguments which has directly led to the deaths of many thousands of people -- all as part of the Governments efforts to keep us safe from terrorists, and all those who harbor them, no matter where in the world they might be found. Even if the terrorists are not really there, like in Iraq.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt



But I'll admit to slight trepidation at the specter of pointing BOTH BARRELS of the "terrorism" gun domestically, via the phrase "domestic terrorism." Why?

Well, the Government isn't supposed to just "connect the dots" and preventively jail folks on one side of the political debate. It must be fair and preventively jail both sides of the political debate.

"Domestic terrorism", justified or not as a charge, takes the Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo/Ghraib "guns" and points them at Kansas. And every other state, because we can't discriminate against Kansas.



It ain't Kansas any more, it's in toto.

As a guidestar for a way out of this pickle, I offer Thomas Paine's "First Principles of Government":

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. "I feel a chill to free speech about now"
Thank you for this post!

:applause:

(Looking forward to reading it through in depth.)

I've been thinking this same thing and I'm glad you put this together.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. an even better choice of words would be "I feel a CHOICE in the air".... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. We're pro-life and we'll kill your ass!
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Nice autosig you got, saying "it's a war on personal freedoms. Keep that in mind at all times" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. I'd like to make a point right here about the Bill Hicks quote you are commenting on
that also relates to the entire chilling picture you are painting.

"It's not a war on drugs, It's a war on personal freedoms." Bill Hicks.

I knew a long time ago when the Supreme Court affirmed that there were entirely different rules of seizure and forfeiture for drug miscreants that we were heading down a road to oppression. Current law allows for people arrested of drug violations to have their properties seized AND DISPOSED OF prior to conviction. I understand that freezing of assets is probably necessary, but to actually seize and disperse before conviction just blows my mind. Land Shark, if I am wrong on this point, please correct me, but I am sure I have read horror stories about people who lost everything but were later found not guilty or never even tried.

I can't understand how there is one special class of crimes and criminals that are especially exempted from rights provided under the 4th Amendment. They are ACCUSED of a drug crime - not convicted. Once you have that framework in place, then of course you have set precedent that other classes of crimes will soon follow. I suspect that the next "super-class" of criminal may very well be "domestic terrorist", loosely defined to fit any definition the state deigns to offer.

REMEMBER, RNC protesters in Minnesota have already been classified as domestic terrorists under the Patriot Act by an overzealous DA. They are lucky that my understanding is that those classifications of charges have been dropped. Next time, another day, another protest, perhaps not so lucky. And the way we are headed, imagine those protesters, now classified as terrorists, held in indefinite detention because they are dangerous and "might" do something in the future AND imagine them being stripped of all their personal assets. How many people will raise a voice in protest in the future if penalties like these exist? The answer is zero.

You are correct that the anti-justice, keep the people down, police state types seize on a person or class that they feel that the malleable public will go along with as being deserving of extra-special punishment. Tiller would be a good example to attempt to get rid of exclusionary laws. I also predict, watch out for the seizure of personal property as allowed to drugs suspects to follow suit, but applied to other classes of SUSPECTED criminals

Our country is now accepting of extra-special punishment for people the state labels as extra-special bad people. That is how Cheney and other formerly sane people are excusing TORTURE. TORTURE!!!!!

The ONLY thing that has kept us a relatively civilized, sane and law-abiding country for so many years has been a belief in the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Eroding in front of us daily. The oft repeated bromide about "First they came for the ____" is no bromide. It is true. People who accept erosions of the law and civil rights because they feel it will never have any bearing on their personal lives are just wrong. It will have a bearing on your life when you no longer feel free to post an honest opinion, or when your spouse tells you to keep your voice down - the neighbors might hear, or when you're afraid that a bumper sticker might land you in indefinite detention as opposed to just having your car keyed.

Having recently lost almost all faith in politicians to do the right thing and to stand up for the Constitution, I have to place any remaining trust I have in the courts and on people who are still brave enough to confront authority and on organizations like the ACLU. They will be the ones carrying on the good fight even when they have to defend the rights of people reviled by society in general.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Thanks; security of individual rights rests in security of the rights of All. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. In a sense, the point about laws is that human beings are unreliable, isn't it?
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 12:59 PM by Joe Chi Minh
Yes, even the Great and the Good of our nations. And the more degenerate and unreliable the latter have become, the more our societies have degenerated, and the more our leaders feel the need to circumvent the rule of law, while proliferating the laws for the populace to observe.

And since, where there is a will, there is a way, and politicians have never lacked for determination in pursuit of their private goals, their imagination never falls short, when it comes to asserting a rationale for circumventing the law. In that, they owe an enormous debt to the previous regime and its "government by colour code".

I don't include Obama and all your Democratic politicians in these strictures, and of course, as with all of us, the degrees of culpability and merit will vary within the individual and in relation to others. Like most people, I wish Obama had acted more independently of the military and commercial oligarchy, but perhaps incremental is the way to go. When policies bear fruit - difficult to imagine re the economy - it will become easier for him to govern as wisely as he would, no doubt, like to, in absolute terms. I expect he's modelled himself on the tortoise, rather than the hare, in the past, successfully.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. For the most part, human beings with POWER aren't reliable (power corrupts), citizens=best bet nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Sure. The world's upside down. "Where your heart is, there your treasure is."
Similarly, the judiciary have historically been drawn from the most predatory, materialistic and venal section of society. In the Middle-Ages, often earls, viscounts, etc.; younger brothers of the magnates. As in Scotland, today, "Sheriff" had a different meaning from police chief.

You may know the old saying of worldlings, "A fool and his money are soon parted." I expect you also know that another word for "fool" was "innocent", and that, by derivation, means "harmless". So, it all fits. The best people are, as a rule, at the bottom of the pile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Lawyers are exactly: Whores of Justice."Turning tricks in the courthouse, it's a justice whorehouse"
The only thing that can save those trading or PURPORTING to trade sacred Justice (or a chance at it) for cash is an invincible commitment to the public interest (which involves heart). WIthout that, they slide into a kind of hell on earth dragging society with it.

I am Land Shark (Mark Twain's term for a lawyer) and a former lawyer (the best kind) and I approve this message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Still, it's hard to take for the many who are struggling to survive with a roof over their
head. Anyway, I hope and expect Obama and the best of his fellow-Democrats are doing their best to legislate to protect precisely the most vulnerable, with a keen sense of urgency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. I have a suspicion that the reason for this fear on the part of the Establishment
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 09:56 AM by Joe Chi Minh
is that no-one can say just how angry and perhaps even deranged with anger people may become, in the event of the economy collapsing. They want "pre-emptive powers". The West has become a mad-house; left and right; one wants social anarchy, the other, economic anarchy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. I'm not saying things will get that bad. But they don't want to take any chances,
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 12:04 PM by Joe Chi Minh
is how I read it. Perhaps they also see it as a measure to defend themselves against prosecution for actions they took in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. If I were a betting man, I'd say Left/Right brouhaha's desired, while top/down Grand Theft goes on
relatively speaking uninterfered with.... The Left and the Right united to defeat the first bailout bill in the House but didn't have the time to organize for the next votes which happened so fast they cannot be considered to be a democratic process of input, with 300 pages added in the Senate bill and 48 hours to read and vote in the Senate. Nobody could read AND fully understand the bill in that brief period of time. Who says government can't act quickly, or that progress has to be incremental. Sometimes government really moves fast: Think bailouts, Patriot Act, Afghanistan after 9-11, etc. It's an indication of what/who the government is responsive and accountable to, really.

That being said, I don't assert any specific intent for a Top/Down power shift/theft, it happens all the time that trillions are transferred in the blind of an eye pretty much by accident or happenstance. ;) But I don't rule out such intent either. It's sufficient to note that the Top/down transfer is occurring in favor of the corporate elites, and to note that the damage to the taxpayers and citizens is the same regardless of intent.

Intent becomes relevant primarily for questions of political fallout and potential criminal charges, if any. The damage to democracy is the same whether it's intentional or an accident, so that's where I plant my stake, in the firmer ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. As a rule, as regards intent, "By their fruit you shall know them" is pretty
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 02:33 PM by Joe Chi Minh
iron-clad. If it looks, quacks, etc.

Where the worldly-wise are concerned, when the chips fall regularly in their favour it's not going to be by any accident. Rather, where their own, narrowest, material self-interest is concerned, their astuteness is awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Yes, note where "their astuteness is awesome" - a profitable way to examine things. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well said.
Funny how you never see intelligent, cogent, and thoughtful posts like this at Free Republic. Guess you'd be branded a commie or something.

I grudgingly agree that, while the full force of the Feds going after the anti-choicers would bring some short-term satisfaction for payback, the prospect of blowback and/or further erosion in civil liberties is cause for pause.

I'd much prefer the power of persuasive public opinion to reform the faultline on abortion. There's a great post at Balloon Juice that I think offers a compelling political strategy to deal with this issue in a way that will make us a better society in the long run, without increasing our inclinations towards a federal security state.


http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22015

Crazy Moonbat Thot Expermnt: Healthy Babies Initiative!

by Anne Laurie

My fellow Americans, the number of American babies who fail to survive their first birthdays, and the even greater number who suffer life-long injury due to the lack of proper prenatal care, is a national disgrace. We are still the most prosperous country in the world, and yet many nations with far fewer resouces have lower infant and maternal death rates. The current economic crisis, where job losses and local government budget problems have cut off the access of so many of our fellow citizens to proper health care, and certain recent incidents of domestic terrorism directed against womens health providers, have made it not only important but essential that we assume our joint responsibilities as a community and do our best to ensure that every baby in America has the chance to be born healthy and wanted.

As a start towards ensuring a better outcome for our children, while supporting job growth within our communities, I am submitting the Healthy Babies Initiative to Congress. This bill will provide for the establishment and support of prenatal and neonatal health clinics in every state, with the goal of ensuring that no woman will need to risk her health or that of her child because she cant afford proper care, or because such care is not available within her community. Small neighborhood clinics will be set up with gynecologists, physician assistants, midwives, doualas, and pediatricians to give every woman in America access to information on general health care, birth control, infant health, and reproductive services. Counseling will be provided for pregnant women without sufficient social networks, those who need extra support to carry healthy infants to term and make the best choices for themselves and their newborns, including adoption services when necessary. Counseling will also be provided, and networked with shelters, to enable women threatened by violent partners or family members to escape the cycle of forced pregnancies and maternal and child abuse. Post-natal services, including well-baby care, new-mother training, and vaccinations will be provided for infants under 18 months of age. This will also help identify infants with physical or other deficits, and ensure that the early intervention so essential for the best possible outcomefor example in babies with Downs syndrome, or those born deaf, or autistic can be started in a timely fashion, so that every baby is given the chance to achieve his or her fullest potential as a future member of the American community.

Larger reproductive health clinics will be set up to provide a full range of medical services to American women of all ages and needs. These clinics will provide more sophisticated prenatal and reproductive services, including fertility treatments and genetic counseling, ultrasounds and sonograms, sophisticated prenatal surgeries and support for problem pregnancies, medically necessary late-pregnancy terminations, as well as maternal, perinatal, and neonatal intensive care units. They will also train the next generation of American doctors, physician assistants, nurses, midwives and counselors to provide the full range of essential servicesbirth control education, including abstinence; the proper use of contraceptives and after-the-act pregnancy preventatives; proper treatment of rape victims and evidence collection for rape cases; womens reproductive health, including mammograms and pap smears; the expanding range of infertility options available to those who desperately wish for healthy children, including adoption resources; safe and legal pregnancy terminations when necessary; and a level of childbirth care and newborn health provisions commensurate with the gifts of our great nation.

All these services will be paid for on a sliding scale, with full financial support for those women and their children who would otherwise be denied access to care. But we intend to provide a level of care such that every American woman, whatever her income, will know about all the options available for her and her baby.

Since, unfortunately, a very small number of misguided individuals have misinterpretated the guidelines of our great religious teachers as sanctioning coercion, violence, and murder in order to restrict others medical decisions, all of these clinics, large or small, will be provided with full security protection through both local and federal authorities. Funding for such security will be considered part of future federal job creation and support programs. Anyone considering any form of illegal activity directed at these clinics, the service providers who will staff the clinics, the women and their families using these clinics, or the businesses and homes in the vicinity of these clinics, should be aware that such activity will be treated as domestic terrorism and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Where necessary, the human resources required to protect every American womans access to reproductive care will be drawn from our enormous pool of highly trained federal agents. This may, at some point in the future, require shifting some funding from the resources currently being used to monitor those forms of widespread surveillance deemed least cost-effective by Homeland Security, or even some reconsideration of penalties and enforcement concerning individual possession or use of those drugs, such as marijuana, now categorized at the lowest levels of potential misuse. But we are too great a nation not to seize this moment and start working towards the great goal of ensuring that every American baby be given the best chance to be born healthy, safe, and wanted. Thank you all, and God bless America.

Domestic Affairs, Outrage | 12:16 am | Respond | Trackback |


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. I am extremely happy to provide a 5th rec
for this outstanding post. Thank you Shark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nicely put together... and a foreshadowing of the "Minority Report" prequel.
I see your points... and how they could come to fruition... but to take a Devil's Advocate position: It doesn't seem like a Democratic/liberal position to draft more Patriot-esque legislation... and we all know the Right won't draft legislation in reaction to something like this.

It's possible that Rightwing terrorism/violence is not the stuff of which Patriot acts are made in this country (notice that the anthrax attacks after 9/11 are almost never talked about in the media today... and certainly are never used to justify illegal domestic wiretaps?)

Maybe I'm just hoping/cynical... but I suspect that rightwing violence will not lead to government legislation to protect "us" (not-rightwingers) from it.

Then again, I've been wrong before. Thanks for so thorough of a heads up. I'll be watching for signs that you might be right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
8. well the pro-Life people seem to feel pretty free to speak
they're saying some pretty extreme things, and don't seem all that chilled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I think everyone should have free speech and not be chilled, but finding "domestic terrorism" to be
a significant problem is accomplished (political support therefor) via speech. I'm just weighing in so that those who use/reinforce the words "domestic terrorism" can consider how their words will or can be taken way beyond what anyone here intends, and then used AGAINST civil liberties.

Maybe I chose not the very best word. Perhaps I should say there's a "Choice" in the air regarding how we frame this heinous crime, not a "chill" in the air. Choices do have consequences sometimes, though freely made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
11. Ha ha... The "Specter" of Patriot Act II...

Hey Landshark, you wouldn't be using an intentional pun here to predict that Specter as now a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee now be tasked with authoring Patriot Act II, would you?

I'll have to swing by you if I get up to Seattle sometime now that I'm in Portland instead of San Diego and say hello again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Do swing by Seattle-way, great city, but you won't find my residence there any more!
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 01:32 AM by Land Shark
Even better, if you can afford the gas or train, travel this great country and call me every day from your cell and, like that annoying Verizon commercial, instead of asking if your signal's still good, we can play "warmer/colder" until you find out where I live now. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had the time, the money and the playfulness to do that with a friend out there who's moved and they haven't seen in a while! ;)

There's a Specter haunting the Judiciary Committee, and it's not the specter of Cloture-proof 60, as Spector's votes I think won't change all that much unless The Dem Majority has more "whips" than I know anything about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. Something else Land Shark once told me...
From the OP:
Constitutional avoidance, my ass. On the contrary, it sure appears to me that the US Supreme Court is hunting for rights to overturn, if theyre individual rights at least, and deferring to the separation of powers of a coordinate branch all too often if its merely a governmental interest at stake instead of a right. (The government doesnt have rights only interests).


This quote from this thread reminded me of another point Land Shark has made, namely that aiming to restore "the rule of law" is an insufficient goal because tyrants (and fascists, like the ones running our country) often cite the law in their cockamamie contortions and distortions of the system they strive to pretend to be preserving. There can be no rest until we have both justice and the rule of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. That Law is force, see quotes from Jefferson and George Washington
The notion is summarized in the 2nd letter to the editor at this link:
http://www.thenation.com/bletters/20081020/lazare
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtLiberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
14. Thanks, Land Shark
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. You are AtLiberty, and you are welcome! :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. "Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty...." Thomas Paine
Hard to believe we'd take the terrorism gun and point it at our own heads!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
20. K&R Thank you.
I think this is a very important point:


An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
21. This might be the worst legacy of Bush's wars.


Constitutional avoidance, my ass. On the contrary, it sure appears to me that the US Supreme Court is hunting for rights to overturn, if theyre individual rights at least, and deferring to the separation of powers of a coordinate branch all too often if its merely a governmental interest at stake instead of a right. (The government doesnt have rights only interests).

If thats not enough for you, Scalias opinion says on stare decisis that precedent can be overturned if it is not well-reasoned. So, WHAT IS THE LAW? Whatever the US Supreme Court wants it to be, when it wants it to be that, regardless of whether the parties in a case are disagreeing about that law and litigating it, or not.


That the fear and terror caused by threat here and abroad don't cause more people (left and right) to read those sentences and feel a chill: the Supreme Court has taken the cover of our apathy and fear to erode more rights in a stealthy fashion that will come back and bite us in the ass in peacetime.

We can't stop looking out just because "the good guys" are in power. This is the time to bring back all the best and necessary parts of being an American.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. And to think: THIS Supreme Court PARADES around like they're AGAINST judicial activism! Holy cow. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Those parades are always full of red flags I've noticed.
http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/5/1/50

The wartime problems of glare and dazzle aren't always from the guns. All that noise is usually covering fire for the stealthy misdirection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
22. Like Coke II, only less popular.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
24. Good thinking.
Only thing I'd add, is that the war is on "social" freedoms--the right to band together for the common good in ways not dictated by the power elite. The only banding together they allow is for the sort of wedge issues that have us at each other's throats and distract us from seeing who's really harming us.

Excellent point about exercising caution about yelling about bad guys under the beds or the big guns will "protect" us to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
25. The next installment in that Horror Serial is Patriot Act III
They did Patriot Act II in Bush's second term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Good point, tho going back in history we can ramp up the # of "Patriot Acts"
How about the Espionage Act, etc.? Or in Jefferson's day the Alien & Sedition Act? These things come around every now and then and we should learn from history to discredit them faster each time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. What Wizard said
June 09, 2005
Patriot Act Two Passed by Senate Intelligence Committee

The controversial USA PATRIOT Act was passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Despite the protests of civil libertarians and immigrant rights groups, the Act may now be made permanent and expanded to allow for surveillance without judicial approval. We host a debate.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 11 to 4 in a closed door session on Tuesday to approve an expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The new measure would make permanent eight provisions of the Act, which is set to expire at the end of this year. It would also increase government surveillance powers by granting investigators access to an individuals business records and allowing wiretaps and searches without a demonstrated link to terrorism or a federal judges permission.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/6/9/patriot_act_two_passed_by_senate


With a Whisper, Not a Bang
By David Martin
The San Antonio Current
Wednesday 24 December 2003

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."
{Snip}

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. Thanks H2OMan, and thanks for the additional comments and information! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
29. Outstanding!
This ranks with the very, very best of DU.

The majority of people on DU appear to recognize that the Bush-Cheney administration was not only operating outside of the Constitution -- other administrations, including Nixon, Reagan, and Bush the Elder did, too -- but were actively seeking to crush that document, created by this nation's Founding Fathers, and to create a different form of government.

Likewise, most people know that the Bush-Cheney administration was preparing to invade Iraq well before 9/11. This is not intended as a statement about the events of 9/11, but rather the intent of the previous administration. They had both foreign and domestic plans, with both short- and long-term goals, and they were prepared to do whatever was needed to mold the public perception to make it possible to reach those goals in an orderly or disorderly fashion.

Events during the 2008 election campaign and since Barack Obama took office suggest that the corporate news media is focusing more attention on the conflicts within the USA, as on the 2.5 wars that we are engaged in around the globe. We have also witnessed an increase in individuals who are described -- after committing a crime -- as a unstable loner, but who often appears connected to at very least the fringes of some curious group. It might be a woman carving a letter on her face, or a religious thug shooting a doctor in church. But, when we step outside of the frame, we can note a pattern, not unlike the old films of coordinated unrest from the 1960s.

This is a good time to be awake. Be aware. And it is a good time to ask questions. I liked one question I read on DU -- I believe from yesterday -- about why hasn't there been more infiltration of right-wing groups by our national police? As I explained on that thread, there actually has been. Many good investigators have made real progress, and have used resources such as the SPLC in doing so. Yet, they are too often frustrated by those who decide who to arrest and prosecute.

But take that a step farther. The SPLC offers the public a wonderful resource, about their intelligence on the growth of cells of "hate groups." Visit their web site. It's stunning. (Better yet, donate, and become an active member of the SPLC.)

Now, consider how some of our intelligence organizations developed. We know, for example, that Truman formed the CIA out of the group that FDR created during WW2. But consider where this group came from -- some from the military, some from law enforcement, but the majority from the private intelligence organizations that certain industries already had, for their benefit in international trade/relations. Rumsfeld and Cheney's reliance on "private contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan was not new -- it was simply a return to what was firmly in place before FDR. Think about that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
45. Thanks H2O Man for your comments here! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
31. "War on terrorists" vs. "law enforcement against criminals".
The latter is routine and of little use to foreign policy debates; the former can be used to leverage nationalism against the established law, and even destroy it and its constitutional basis.

The neocons were VERY fast out of the gate right after 9/11 with the talking point that this was WAR, and that anyone saying it was a law enforcement matter was putting this nation in grave danger.

Almost like they had thought of it ahead of time.


Recommended! Nice work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
32. or howzabout an Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act against "Christian activists"
e.g., the illustrators of The Saint John's Bible, members of the Islamist-like political-religious Christian Dems coming in from Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands, with MLK III as a person of interest? (being related to a leader, or "pastor" of these sectarians, who led several religious-political protests against a liberal President, Johnson)
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. With the wink at the end, it's a good first draft on a comedy routine... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
34. The obvious answer is to enforce the laws we already have....
but that would disable a buttload of the grandstanding that goes on in politics.

Regardless, the man should have been in prison for his prior actions, possibly even conspiracy, but not for his beliefs. I'm not a big fan of the concept of "thought crimes" and the brand of fascism that would result (though the movie was interesting).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. ...but that would disable {lotsa} grandstanding...in politics (rest of sentence deserves header!)nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Aug 08th 2022, 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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