The News We Kept to Ourselves

Soames123

unread,

Apr 11, 2003, 7:33:42 PM4/11/03

to

By EASON JORDAN

TLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the
government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with
Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and
heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have
jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For
weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a
secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's
ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station
chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about
the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him
killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection.
The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services
who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished,
never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with
whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways.
Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came
to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our
payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son,
Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his
brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King
Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have
responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in
the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of
the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long
been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so
the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few
months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon
killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me
that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry
officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed
by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of
congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why
he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him
never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for
upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to
us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we
intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me
they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in
March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an
armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of
two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their
bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli
agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we
refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still
haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi
secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included
speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her
father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive,
they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag
containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam
Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching
tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be
told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.

Robert Allen

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 12:02:13 AM4/12/03

to

Why am I reminded of the propaganda stories in WW I of "Huns" throwing
babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets?

Such stories now, true or false, are so suspect as to be useless. It's not
like we got a heck of a lot of news coverage out of Baghdad with CNN there,
on their moral high-horse, er high-ground, during the Saddam years.

"Soames123" <soam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030411193342...@mb-fx.aol.com...

>
>
>
> The News We Kept to Ourselves
>
> By EASON JORDAN
>

> TLANTA - Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the

> government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews
with
> Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw
and

> heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would

helmsman

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 7:08:11 AM4/12/03

to

There is no doubt that EVERY network WORLDWIDE for EVERY COUNTRY knew
what was happening. And there is NO doubt that it is STILL happening
in other countries (ie N.KOREA ect) and the WORLDWIDE networks know it
and will NOT run the stories. ALL the networks with access are guilty!

..................................
Boycott French products.

RHF

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 7:16:52 AM4/12/03

to

RA,

who, Who. W H O !
Allowed CNN to go down the path of . . .
Cover-Ups, Lies and Distortion of the News.
- The Founder
- - Man at the Top
- - - Ted Turner

YES- Ted Tuner is now 'retire' and
- No longer is a 'Business Man'
- - But Ted Turner remains an "OWLES"
- - - One World Liberal Elite Socialist

As CNN's CEO Ted Tunner Knew . . .
About the Cover-Up, Lies and Distortion of the News.
- What Did Ted Turner Know ?
- - When Did He Know It ?
- - - Follow the Money !

We Need Congressional Hearings . . .
On the CNN Cover-Up Lies and Distortion of the News.
- Write the White House
- - Write Congress
- - - Write Jane Fonda :o)

~ RHF
.
.
= = = "Robert Allen" <otto...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
= = = news:<9dMla.512$C14...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...

yachtboy!

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 8:06:29 AM4/12/03

to

On 12 Apr 2003 04:16:52 -0700, rhf-...@usa.com (RHF) wrote:

>RA,
>
>who, Who. W H O !
>Allowed CNN to go down the path of . . .
>Cover-Ups, Lies and Distortion of the News.
>- The Founder
>- - Man at the Top
>- - - Ted Turner
>
>YES- Ted Tuner is now 'retire' and
>- No longer is a 'Business Man'
>- - But Ted Turner remains an "OWLES"
>- - - One World Liberal Elite Socialist
>
>As CNN's CEO Ted Tunner Knew . . .
>About the Cover-Up, Lies and Distortion of the News.
>- What Did Ted Turner Know ?
>- - When Did He Know It ?
>- - - Follow the Money !
>
>We Need Congressional Hearings . . .
>On the CNN Cover-Up Lies and Distortion of the News.
>- Write the White House
>- - Write Congress
>- - - Write Jane Fonda :o)
>
>
>~ RHF

Why do you assume that liberal Democrats oppose this war?
Some do, many do not.
I am a very liberal socialist Democrat, and I have supported this from
the beginning. (yes, that means 12 years ago).
Just because I despise Bush doesn't mean I disagree with this. I am at
a loss as to why you keep perpetuating all these stereotypes, it
really is discouraging.
Trust me, I know some very conservative Republicans who feel this war
was a mistake. This is no longer about what party, or political
beliefs you espouse, it's about right and wrong, good and evil.
But your comments keep this from being anything more than party
affiliation, and that only hurts the truth.
(and yes, when you posted this article originally, I sent it to all my
friends, and posted it in a couple of newsgroups, how can you explain
that a very liberal Democrat agrees with you, if party was the only
factor?)
*sigh*
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to email
me off board, I would be very glad to discuss this.

Gogarty

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 3:31:24 PM4/12/03

to

In article <9dMla.512$C14...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
otto...@sbcglobal.net says...

>
>
>Why am I reminded of the propaganda stories in WW I of "Huns" throwing
>babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets?

Shucks, you don't have to go back that far. After Iraq annexed Kuwait a well
orchestrated campaign run by a U.S. PR company had the Iraqis disconnecting
life support from premature babies in Kuwait hospitals. Turned out there was
not a gram of truth in it -- made up out of whole cloth.

RHF

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 7:51:38 PM4/12/03

to

YB,

I do not remember using the term 'Democrat' or 'Republican' ?

There are many fine upstanding American Citizens who are 'registered'
Democrats.

There are many fine upstanding American Citizens who are 'registered'
Republicans.

Both are not "Blinded" by Party Affiliation; they inform themselves
and vote accordingly, as is their 'Right' as an American Citizens.

What I do object to is those who put PARTY Loyalty before the Good of
the Country (The American People). I many countries these people
are call "Political Cadre" who put the "POWER" of the Party before the
Good of the Nation. Especially those who's focus is on the World and
not America First.

To me they are "OWLES" = One World Liberal Elite Socialist [.]

ABOUT the "OWLES" and their Superior Knowledge and Wisdom:
Because after all, only the "OWLES" are morally right and politically
correct; and the rest of us are he "Un-Washed" (both dumb and
ignorant); 'brown shirted', 'white rob wearing' de-generated
sub-humans.

THE TRUTH IS . . . What the "OWLES" do not understand is that the
"Un-Washed" Common Peoples are the Salt of the Earth (Life Giving
Force of Humanity). That these "Un-Washed" Common Peoples have and
possess a 'Vast Un-Common Knowledge" that is beyond the limits of the
OWLES understanding and perception.

I have never thought of any American President as something other than
a Good Man doing a Tough Job. Some have been SAD at times; others
Disappointing at Times and two were Tragic.

But you use the word 'DESPISE' and link it to GW Bush our current US
President. Your Words reveal your Bias and Hate, and thus the true
nature of your political being.

NOTE: About Political Thought at the Extreme is Extreme:
Be It... Conservative or Liberal.
Just changing the Words from Conservative to Liberal does not change
the stereo typing evidenced by the writers bias.

For the Choice of the Word Conservative(Black) or Liberal(White)
Reveals Our Hidden Biases

For the Choice of the Word
- Conservative "Republican" (Black/Bad/Regressive)
- - Or, Liberal "Democrat" (White/Good/Enlightened)
- - - Reveals Our Hidden Biases

The Middle Course for All
- The Wide and Natural Path
- - The "Progressive" Way
- - - The Road to Many Tomorrows

Proud to say: I AM AN AMERICAN !

Blessed by God with Life and Progressive by Nature by Living ~ RHF
[ Just an Old Retired Blue Collar Union Member - Tovarisch ]
.
.
= = = swl_y...@yahoo.com (yachtboy!) wrote in message
= = = news:<3e97fd24....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...

r lee

unread,

Apr 12, 2003, 8:24:11 PM4/12/03

to

I DESPISE the bastard too. A megalomaniac who is leading the country to
it's ruin.

WAR + OCCUPATION OF IRAQ + TAX CUT + DEFICIT = ECONOMIC RUIN

I am biased against political hacks, religious wackos, politicians who use
their office to enrich their supporters at the expense of the hard working
tax paying citizens, and fascists. All of which sum up the man who
currently occupies the white house.

RHF wrote in message <3ef6beca.03041...@posting.google.com>...

Tad Early

unread,

Apr 13, 2003, 12:06:01 AM4/13/03

to

"r lee" <m...@you.edu> wrote in message
news:b7aane$inp$1...@iruka.swcp.com...

> I DESPISE the bastard too. A megalomaniac who is leading the
country to
> it's ruin.
>
> WAR + OCCUPATION OF IRAQ + TAX CUT + DEFICIT = ECONOMIC RUIN
>
> I am biased against political hacks, religious wackos, politicians
who use
> their office to enrich their supporters at the expense of the hard
working
> tax paying citizens, and fascists. All of which sum up the man who
> currently occupies the white house.
>

Wait--lemme take a wild guess. You thought his predecessor was just
peachy.

Q

unread,

Apr 13, 2003, 5:35:17 AM4/13/03

to

"r lee" <m...@you.edu> wrote in message news:b7aane$inp$1...@iruka.swcp.com...

> I DESPISE the bastard too. A megalomaniac who is leading the country to
> it's ruin.
>
> WAR + OCCUPATION OF IRAQ + TAX CUT + DEFICIT = ECONOMIC RUIN
>
> I am biased against political hacks, religious wackos, politicians who use
> their office to enrich their supporters at the expense of the hard working
> tax paying citizens, and fascists. All of which sum up the man who
> currently occupies the white house.

Wow - and here I thought he was talking about Slick Willy...

Go figure...

And you need a refresher course on what a fascist is. They're socialists -
and it doesn't take a college degree to know who THAT represents.

RHF

unread,

Apr 13, 2003, 6:50:06 AM4/13/03

to

= = = "r lee" <m...@you.edu> wrote in message
= = = news:<b7aane$inp$1...@iruka.swcp.com>...

> I DESPISE the bastard too. A megalomaniac who is leading the country to
> it's ruin.
>
> WAR + OCCUPATION OF IRAQ + TAX CUT + DEFICIT = ECONOMIC RUIN
>
>

> I am biased against political hacks, religious wackos, politicians who use
> their office to enrich their supporters at the expense of the hard working
> tax paying citizens, and fascists. All of which sum up the man who
> currently occupies the white house.
>
>

R. Lee,

I think you miss-wrote yourself, in part of this sentence:
- - - "and fascists. - - -

Here you can edit it for youself:

"I am biased against political hacks, religious wackos, politicians
who use their office to enrich their supporters at the expense of the
hard working tax paying citizens, and fascists. All of which sum up
the man who currently occupies the white house."

jftfoi ~ RHF

Petey Arnett

unread,

Apr 13, 2003, 5:39:05 AM4/13/03

to

Q Q...@Q.invalid.com snitches on poster he disagrees with:

Message ID: <PCQja.56213$0X.11...@twister.columbus.rr.com>

The pictures and the truth that Q Q...@Q.invalid.com would rather you not
have access to. Decide for

yourself.

http://regulareverydaypeople.com/ Lots of links

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles207.htm

Matthew Tempest
Tuesday February 4, 2003

Noam Chomsky: The [peace] demonstrations were another indication of a
quite remarkable phenomenon. There is around the world and in the
United States opposition to the coming war that is at a level that is
completely unprecedented in US or European history both in scope and
the parts of the population it draws on.

There's never been a time that I can think of when there's been such
massive opposition to a war before it was even started. And the closer
you get to the region, the higher the opposition appears to be. In
Turkey, polls indicated close to 90% opposition, in Europe it's quite
substantial, and in the United States the figures you see in polls,
however, are quite misleading because there's another factor that
isn't considered that differentiates the United States from the rest
of the world. This is the only country where Saddam Hussein is not
only reviled and despised but also feared, so since September polls
have shown that something like 60-70% of the population literally
think that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to their survival.

Now there's no objective reason why the US should be more frightened
of Saddam than say the Kuwaitis, but there is a reason - namely that
since September there's been a drumbeat of propaganda trying to
bludgeon people into the belief that not only is Saddam a terrible
person but in fact he's going to come after us tomorrow unless we stop
him today. And that reaches people. So if you want to understand the
actual opposition to the war in the US you have to extract that
factor. The factor of completely irrational fear created by massive
propaganda, and if you did I think you'd find it's much like
everywhere else.

What is not pointed out in the press coverage is that there is simply
no precedent, or anything like a precedent, for this kind of public
opposition to a war. And it extends itself far more broadly, it's not
just opposition to war it's a lack of faith in the leaderships. You
may have seen a study released by the world economic forum a couple of
days ago which estimated trust in leaders, and the lowest was in
leaders of the United States. Trusted by little over quarter of the
population, and I think that reflects concerns over the adventurism
and violence and the threats that are perceived in the actions and
plans of the current administration.

These are things that ought to be central. Even in the United States
there is overwhelming opposition to the war and that corresponding
decline in trust in the leadership that is driving the war. This has
been developing for some time but it is now reaching an unusual state,
and, just to get back to the demonstrations over the weekend, that's
never happened before. If you compare it with the Vietnam war, the
current stage of the war with Iraq is approximately like that of 1961
- that is, before the war actually was launched, as it was in 1962
with the US bombing of South Vietnam and driving millions of people
into concentration camps and chemical warfare and so on, but there was
no protest. In fact, so little protest that few people even remember.

The protests didn't begin to develop until several years later when
large parts of south Vietnam were being subjected to saturation
bombing by B-52s, hundreds of thousands of troops where there,
hundreds of thousands had been killed, and then even after that, when
the protests finally did develop in the US and Europe it was mostly
focused on a side-issue - the bombing of north Vietnam which was
undoubtedly a crime, it was far more intense in the south which was
always the US target, and that's continued.

It's also, incidentally, recognised by the government. So when any
administration comes into office the first thing it does is have a
worldwide intelligence assessment - "What's the state of the world?" -
provided by the intelligence services. These are secret and you learn
about them 30 or 40 years later when they're declassified. When the
first Bush administration came in 1989 parts of their intelligence
assessment were leaked, and they're very revealing about what happened
in the subsequent 10 years about precisely these questions.

The parts that were leaked said that it was about military
confrontations with much weaker enemies, recognising they were the
only kind we were going to be willing to face, or even exist. So in
confrontations with much weaker enemies the United States must win
"decisively and rapidly" because otherwise popular support will erode,
because it's understood to be very thin. Not like the 1960s when the
government could fight a long, brutal war for years and years
practically destroying a country without any protest. Not now. Now
they have to win. They have to terrify the population to feel there's
some enormous threat to their existence and carry out a mircaculous,
decisive and rapid victory over this enormous foe and march on to the
next one.

Remember the people now running the show in Washington are mostly
recycled Reaganites, essentially reliving the script of the 1980s -
that's an apt analogy. And in the 1980s they were imposing domestic
programmes which were quite harmful to the general population and
which were unpopular. People opposed most of their domestic
programmes. And the way they succeeded in ramming it through was by
repeatedly keeping the population in a state of panic.

So one year it was an airbase in Grenada which the Russians were going
to use to bomb the United States. It sounds ludicrous but that was the
propaganda lie and it worked.

Nicaragua was "two days' marching time from Texas" - a dagger pointed
at the heart of Texas, to borrow Hitler's phrase. Again, you'd think
the people would collapse with laughter. But they didn't. That was
continually brought up to frighten us - Nicargua might conquer us on
it's way to conquer the hemisphere. A national emergency was called
because of the threat posed to national security by Nicargua. Libyan
hitmen were wandering the streets of Washington to assassinate our
leader - hispanic narco-terrorists. One thing after another was
conjured up to keep the population in a state of constant fear while
they carried out their major terrorist wars.

Remember, the same people declared a war on terror in 1981 that was
going to be the centrepiece of US foreign policy focused primarily on
central America, and they carried out a war on terror in central
America where they ended up killing about 200,000 people, leaving four
countries devastated. Since 1990, when the US took them over again,
they've declined still further into deep poverty. Now they're doing
the same thing for the same purposes - they are carrying out domestic
programmes to which the population is strongly opposed because they're
being harmed by them.

But the international adventurism, the conjuring up of enemies that
are about to destroy us, that's second nature, very familiar. They
didn't invent it, others have done the same thing, others have done it
in history but they became masters of this art and are now doing it
again.

I don't want to suggest that they have no reasons for wanting to take
over Iraq. Of course they do - long-standing reasons that everyone
knows. Controlling Iraq will put the US in a very powerful position to
extend it domination of the major energy resources of the world.
That's not a small point.

But look at the specific timing. It's rather striking that the
propaganda drumbeat began in September - what happened in September?
Well, it's when the Congressional campaign began and it was certain
that the Republicans were not going to win it by allowing social and
economic issues to dominate. They would have been smashed. They had to
do exactly what they did in the '80s. Replace them by security issues
and in the case of a threat to security people tend to rally around
the president - a strong figure who'll protect us from horrible
dangers.

The more likely direction this will take [after a war with Iraq] will
be Iran, and possibly Syria. North Korea is a different case. What
they are demonstrating to the world with great clarity is that if you
want to deter US aggression you better have weapons of mass
destruction [WMD], or else a credible threat of terror. There's
nothing else that will deter them - they can't be deterred by
conventional forces. That's a terrible lesson to teach, but it's
exactly what's being taught.

For years, experts in the mainstream have been pointing out that the
US is causing weapons proliferation by its adventures since others
cannot protect themselves except by WMD or the threat of terror.
Kenneth Waltz is one who recently pointed this out. But years ago,
even before the Bush administration, leading commentators like Samuel
Huntington in Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal, were
pointing out that the United States is following a dangerous course.
He was talking about the Clinton administration but he pointed out
that, for much of the world, the US is now regarded as a rogue state
and the leading threat to their existence. In fact one of the striking
things about the opposition to the war now, again unprecedented, is
how broadly it extends across the political spectrum, so the two major
foreign policy journals, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy have just
in their recent issues run very critical articles by distinguished
mainstream figures opposing the resort to war in this case.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences rarely takes a position on
controversial current issues has just published a long monogram on
this issue by its committee on international security giving as
sympathetic as possible an account of the Bush administration position
then simply dismantling it line by line on very narrow grounds - much
narrower than I would prefer - but nevertheless successfully.

Gogarty

unread,

Apr 14, 2003, 5:21:49 PM4/14/03

to

Well, we're having a lovely war -- if you are the type that gets its jollies
from watching a 300 pound bully beat the shit out of a little guy.

I feel like a German in 1939.

bb...@green.home.org

unread,

Apr 14, 2003, 7:12:40 PM4/14/03

to

stupid troll... a German in 1939 would have leveled the cities...

we're more like a dermatologist removing a benign growth...

Q

unread,

Apr 14, 2003, 10:21:43 PM4/14/03

to

"Gogarty" <Gog...@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:jEydnQZgCdD...@bway.net...

Why? You want to invade Poland?

Q

unread,

Apr 14, 2003, 10:23:08 PM4/14/03

to

<bb...@green.home.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb9mgud...@green.home.org...

Ahh...but that is what so offends them - don't you see - when you have a
problem created by perversion, you're just supposed to spend lots of money
on it trying to figure it out...

RHF

unread,

Apr 15, 2003, 4:18:44 AM4/15/03

to

FO&A,

Up-Date on the Cover-Ups and Lies from CNN (Part of AOL-Time Warner)

AOL-TW Execs Accused of Insider Trading
- - - Source: Business - Reuters By Derek Caney
- - - (Financial Corruption and Illegal Stock Trading Activities)

In addition to AOL Time Warner and Case,
- - - the lawsuit also names as defendants Vice Chairman TED TURNER.

WHO KNEW IT? and WHO BLEW IT?
- CNN's Cover-Ups and Lies
- - AOL & Time Warner's Insider Trading
- - - One Name "TED TURNER"

~ RHF
.
.
= = = rhf-...@usa.com (RHF) wrote in message
= = = news:<3ef6beca.0304...@posting.google.com>...

RHF

unread,

Apr 17, 2003, 6:27:19 AM4/17/03

to

WHY CNN WHEN WRONG ?

"We are the ones that determine what the people's attitudes are.
- It's in our hands"
- - Ted Turner,
- - - CNN Founder and President, speaking to a broadcasters group.

"Christianity is a Religion for Losers."
- Ted Turner,
- - CNN Founder and President, to the Dallas Morning News, 1989.

~ RHF
.
.
= = = rhf-...@usa.com (RHF) wrote in message

= = = news:<3ef6beca.03041...@posting.google.com>...

RHF

unread,

Apr 18, 2003, 12:50:30 AM4/18/03

to

The Lies from CNN Continue.

Vice President Dick Cheney is Dead !
- An Honest Mistake ?
- - A Simple Lie ?
- - - Manipulation of the Stock Market ?
GoTo=> http://thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml

Q

unread,

Apr 18, 2003, 2:05:02 AM4/18/03

to

"RHF" <rhf-...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:3ef6beca.03041...@posting.google.com...

> The Lies from CNN Continue.
>
> Vice President Dick Cheney is Dead !
> - An Honest Mistake ?
> - - A Simple Lie ?
> - - - Manipulation of the Stock Market ?
> GoTo=> http://thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml
>
> ~ RHF

Where are the ones for Clinton(s) and Gore? Wouldn't mind seeing those. And
Daschle, Cretin, Chirac, Putin, a few others...

RHF

unread,

Apr 18, 2003, 6:10:58 AM4/18/03

to

"Q",

Hey you are right; Ford, Reagan and Cheney all have pre-formated Death
Notices.
[Three Republicans and OMG even Bob Hope makes 4]. But not one
democrat (not counting Fidel).

Just one more example of 'slanting' of the News by CNN.
[ Death Wishes for Republicans ]

BIG QUESTION ? Where is . . .
- The CNN Death Notice for
- - Saddam Hussein ? ? ?
- - - and Will Ted Turner write it himself ?

Naturally CNN and Ted Turner has a 'ready made' Death Notice for the
POPE.
Goto=> http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/cnnobit5.html
One suspects that Ted Turner would like to see all Christian Leaders
Dead given his Public Anti-Christian View Point.

"Christianity is a Religion for Losers."
- Ted Turner,
- - CNN Founder and President,

- - - to the Dallas Morning News, 1989.

~ RHF
.
.
= = = "Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote in message
= = = news:<iAMna.108663$0X.25...@twister.columbus.rr.com>...

Q

unread,

Apr 21, 2003, 10:01:44 PM4/21/03

to

Look, you british piece of feces...

Letters to the Editor
- Arlington, VA

During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats
have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their
attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I
remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some
of their exploits.

First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize".
The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their
early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The
National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the
Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care,
transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and
law enforcement.

Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and
academic elite against the conservative republic. After Der Fuhrer's
election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into
a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially
popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press.

Being a Nazi was "politically correct". They called themselves "The
Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at
everyone else. As Hitler acquired more power, he referred to his
critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who
questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a
"Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of
communications, proclaimed a "New World Order".

The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews,
Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to
overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good
people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands
of "terrorists and madmen".Right-wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who
protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in
jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German
people".

Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler
ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that
gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that
for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to
be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law
enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender
their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered
in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals'
service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and
perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the
German people.

When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns
from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the
street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi
versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers
spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never
seen again.

The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank
accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who
had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt
against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and
the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps.
Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the
escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement
and concealment of partisan resistance fighters.

Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the
children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi
remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state
religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as
"right wing fanatics".

Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them
burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried
women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and
then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good
was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German
people were going to be the "peacekeepers".

Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or
"right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist
monsters.

-- Thomas Colton Ruthford

Brenda Ann

unread,

Apr 21, 2003, 10:14:47 PM4/21/03

to

OK, fine, you've posted this several times now... and yet you do not seem to
see the parallels with what is happening today in the United States?

"Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote in message

news:co1pa.142167$0X.29...@twister.columbus.rr.com...

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 21, 2003, 10:04:31 PM4/21/03

to

Noel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 09:35:17 GMT, "Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote:
>

> >And you need a refresher course on what a fascist is. They're socialists -
> >and it doesn't take a college degree to know who THAT represents.

Socialists are left-wing. Fascists are right-wing.
Fascism is strongly pro-corporate and anti-labor. Socialism
is strongly anti-corporate and pro-labor.

Your ignorance is showing. Go for that college degree. It
might do you some good.

>
> If you think a fascist is a socialist then taking a college degree
> might not be such a bad idea.

Michael Bryant

unread,

Apr 21, 2003, 10:49:02 PM4/21/03

to

>From: "Q" Q...@Q.invalid.com

>Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or
>"right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist
>monsters.

Typical attempt to re-write history. The German National Socialists were
statist corporate actors with close ties to US Republican industrialists, such
as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburg. It was US Republicans who were at the
forefront of keeping the US from opposing the Germans in the late '30s. They
blamed real Socialists for burning gov't buildings, persecuting them and
sending them to concentration camps. They waged war against other socialist
states, killing over 20 million people in the process.

Regardless of what name they attempted to confuse people with, the Nazis were
less socialist than Rush Limbaugh.

What history will you attempt to re-write next?

Brenda Ann

unread,

Apr 21, 2003, 11:17:05 PM4/21/03

to

"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030421224902...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >From: "Q" Q...@Q.invalid.com

>
> Typical attempt to re-write history. The German National Socialists were
> statist corporate actors with close ties to US Republican industrialists,
such
> as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburg. It was US Republicans who were at the
> forefront of keeping the US from opposing the Germans in the late '30s.
They
> blamed real Socialists for burning gov't buildings, persecuting them and
> sending them to concentration camps. They waged war against other
socialist
> states, killing over 20 million people in the process.
>
> Regardless of what name they attempted to confuse people with, the Nazis
were
> less socialist than Rush Limbaugh.
>
> What history will you attempt to re-write next?
>

Indeed.. those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it..

Hitler's association with Stalin was one of convenience only.. he hated
communists and socialists as much as he hated Jews.. and couldn't wait to
stab Stalin in the back. He just needed his help to conquer eastern Europe..

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 21, 2003, 11:43:45 PM4/21/03

to

Q wrote:
> Look, you british piece of feces...

Now, is that any way to talk to your friends?

--
M2

Q

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 5:16:12 AM4/22/03

to

That article was written by someone who LIVED through those times, NOT some
arm-chair liberal analyst like YOU.

Brenda Ann

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 6:10:15 AM4/22/03

to

Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??

"Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote in message

news:wL7pa.144241$0X.30...@twister.columbus.rr.com...

RHF

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:17:05 AM4/22/03

to

MB,

" Regardless of what name they attempted to confuse people with, the
Nazis were less socialist than Rush Limbaugh. "

So are you saying that Rush Limbaugh is a Socialist and a Lefty :o) ?

~ RHF
.
.
= = = mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message
= = = news:<20030421224902...@mb-m10.aol.com>...

N8KDV

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:23:11 AM4/22/03

to

RHF wrote:

> MB,
>
> " Regardless of what name they attempted to confuse people with, the
> Nazis were less socialist than Rush Limbaugh. "
>
> So are you saying that Rush Limbaugh is a Socialist and a Lefty :o) ?

Unfortunately, Bryant has surfaced again to let us know he doesn't have a clue!

RHF

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:38:44 AM4/22/03

to

RA,

All political theories aside. In reality the Fascist, Socialist and
Communist Leaders and Leadership focus on coming to 'Power' Achieving
Power, Maintaining Power, Expanding their Power, Having Total Power
over the nation/state; economy/enterprise; and the workers/people.
Their tools are to exploite the foundation of a nations economy both
business and the workers. Religion and Education are also useful
tools to manipulate the masses. The "IST" ultimately are about the
Powerful Few Controlling the powerless many. The Party comes First
before the Nation: For the Party is the Nation and the Leaders are the
Party.

Let Us Remember to... Never Forget the Corruption of a 'One Party
System' and "The Power of The Leader" with out reguard for the title
of the party's "ism".

A 'prisoner' in the Peoples Democratic Republic of California ~ RHF
.
.
= = = Ross Archer <arc...@topnow.com> wrote in message
= = = news:<3EA4A32E...@topnow.com>...

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 12:24:03 PM4/22/03

to

RHF wrote:
> RA,
>
> All political theories aside. In reality the Fascist, Socialist and
> Communist Leaders and Leadership focus on coming to 'Power' Achieving
> Power, Maintaining Power, Expanding their Power, Having Total Power
> over the nation/state; economy/enterprise; and the workers/people.
> Their tools are to exploite the foundation of a nations economy both
> business and the workers. Religion and Education are also useful
> tools to manipulate the masses. The "IST" ultimately are about the
> Powerful Few Controlling the powerless many. The Party comes First
> before the Nation: For the Party is the Nation and the Leaders are the
> Party.

Sure. But this includes "social conservatives" as well (unless they
were already included under "Fascist" :)). Further, the only sort of
socialists described aptly above are already included under the heading
of Communists. Non-communist socialists are nothing of the sort.

Included in the original meaning of liberal (18 and 19th century) was
someone who is against the above, which would include fiscal
conservatives, Liberals, market-socialists, etc. True libertarians are
also against the above (but are not liberals because of there focus on
the immorality of state intervention and the primacy of that over
welfare of the masses, etc.)

--
M2

Mark S. Holden

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 1:53:36 PM4/22/03

to

Michael Bryant wrote:
>
<snip>

> Typical attempt to re-write history. The German National Socialists were
> statist corporate actors with close ties to US Republican industrialists, such
> as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburg. It was US Republicans who were at the
> forefront of keeping the US from opposing the Germans in the late '30s. They
> blamed real Socialists for burning gov't buildings, persecuting them and
> sending them to concentration camps. They waged war against other socialist
> states, killing over 20 million people in the process.
>

In 1918, Henry Ford ran for the Senate as a Democrat.

As for Lindberg, based on what I remember reading, he probably wasn't active in any political party unless you count "America First". (an isolationist organization) I know there was speculation he'd run for the Senate against a Republican in Minnesota.

Q

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 3:30:40 PM4/22/03

to

"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote

> Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times
too...
> on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually
pays
> attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??

My father's family left Germany when the Nazis first came into power - they
were told to either sign Nazi citizenship papers, or leave Germany - so they
left, and promptly joined those opposed to Hitler. Some returned after the
Nazis were defeated. They all agree that defeating a dictator like Hussein
is in the interest of everyone, and have always likened those like Hitler
and Stalin as being related to the American Democratic party. It's not just
them - most that I've spoken to in Europe over the years have made the same
comparison, mostly relating the Democrats to communists/socialists. Many
expressed embarrassment for us when Clinton was in office. In fact, the only
ones that I've spoken to that related to Clinton were those that were
enamored with the communists.

As for Patriot II, yes, I've read it - several times. Giving more power in a
time of war (declared by Congress) can't be viewed as a BAD thing,
especially in this day and age of terrorism.

Section 101: Individual Terrorists as Foreign Powers.
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(4), the definition of "foreign power" includes
groups that engage in international terrorism, but does not reach
unaffiliated individuals who do so. As a result, investigations of "lone
wolf" terrorists or "sleeper cells" may not be authorized under FISA. Such
investigations therefore must proceed under the stricter standards and
shorter time periods set forth in Title III, potentially resulting in
unnecessary and dangerous delays and greater administrative burden. This
provision would expand FISA's definition of "foreign power" to include all
persons, regardless of whether they are affiliated with an international
terrorist group, who engage in international terrorism.

Any person who engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for
a foreign power would qualify as an "agent of a foreign power," regardless
of whether those activities are federal crimes.
(Problem with that?)

50 U.S.C. § 1802 allows the Attorney General to authorize electronic
surveillance for up to a year, without the FISA Court's prior approval, in
two narrow circumstances: (1) if the surveillance is are directed solely at
communications between foreign powers; or (2) if the surveillance is
directed solely at the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
spoken communications, from property under the exclusive control of a
foreign power. In addition, the Attorney General must certify that there is
no substantial likelihood that such surveillance will acquire the
communications of U.S. persons. (In essence, § 1802 authorizes the
surveillance of communications between foreign governments, and between a
foreign government and its embassy.)...This provision would enhance the
presidential authorization exception by eliminating the requirement that
electronic surveillance cannot be directed at the spoken communications of
foreign powers.

...there does not appear to be a statutory defense for agents who engage in
surveillance or searches pursuant to FISA authorities under which no prior
court approval is required--e.g., pursuant to FISA's wartime exception (50
U. S.C. §§ 1811, 1829 & 1844),
(in other words, agents who involve themselves in illegal surveillance are
not protected)

50 U.S.C. § 1842(a)(1) makes FISA pen registers available in investigations
of non-U.S. persons to "obtain foreign intelligence information." But for
U.S. persons, the standard is much higher: in cases involving U.S. persons,
pen registers are only available "to protect against international terrorism
or clandestine intelligence activities." Perversely, this appears to be
stricter than the standard for pen registers under Title III, which requires
only that it be shown that the information "is relevant to an ongoing
criminal investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1). This provision would amend
§ 1842(a)(1) by eliminating the stricter standard for U.S. persons.
Specifically, FISA pen registers would be available in investigations of
both U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons whenever they could be used "to
obtain foreign intelligence information."
(this regards ONLY information/persons involved with obtaining intelligence
information)

This provision would amend FISA to permit the FISA Court of Review, in its
discretion, to appoint a lawyer, with appropriate security credentials, to
defend the judgment of the FISA Court, when the United States appeals a
ruling to the FISA Court of Review. It would also provide for the
compensation of a lawyer so appointed by the FISA Court of Review.
(checks and balances)

Groups engaged in international terrorism are included under the definition
of "foreign power" in FISA. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(4). However, for certain
purposes--including the duration of surveillance orders and the definition
of what constitutes a "United States person"--they are effectively excluded
from the concept of foreign powers, and accorded the more protected
treatment that FISA provides to other entities. This section amends FISA so
that international terrorist organizations are consistently treated as
foreign powers for these purposes.

More specifically, there are basically two sets within the FISA definition
of "foreign power" under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a): (i) A paragraph (1)-(3) set,
which includes foreign governments, foreign factions, and entities that
foreign governments openly acknowledge they direct and control. (ii) A
paragraph (4)-(6) set, which includes groups engaged in international
terrorism or preparations therefor, foreign-based political organizations
not substantially composed of U.S. persons, and entities directed and
controlled by foreign governments.

Section 122: Inclusion of Terrorist Activities as Surveillance Predicates.
This section adds terrorist activities, as defined under the amendment of
section 121, and four specific offenses that are likely to be committed by
terrorists (the offenses defined by 18 U.S.C. § 37, 930(c), 956, and 1993),
as explicit predicates for electronic surveillance and monitoring. It
further adds an explicit reference to terrorist activities to the provision
authorizing electronic surveillance without a court order in emergency
situations--18 U.S.C. § 2518(7)--and makes conforming changes in the
corresponding provision (18 U.S.C. § 3125) for using pen registers and trap
and trace devices without a court order in emergency situations.

Id. at 322. Because domestic security investigations were subject to Title
III, despite these considerations, the Court invited Congress to legislate
new and different standards for such investigations:

"Given [the] potential distinctions between Title III criminal surveillances
and those involving the domestic security, Congress may wish to consider
protective standards for the latter which differ from those already
prescribed for specified crimes in Title III. Different standards may be
compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation
to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the
protected rights of our citizens."

It goes on. If you really READ it, the only people that would have something
to fear would be those involved in terrorist activities. Only the most
paranoid delusions would read something else into all of this. This act does
NOT give unlimited powers, as those that are running around crying that the
sky is falling would suggest. It speaks of warrants, "that are valid in
another district, if the crime being investigated is "domestic terrorism or
international terrorism" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331. But § 2331 sets
forth an extremely narrow definition of terrorism, as it is limited to
"violent acts or acts dangerous to human life." Thus section 2331 arguably
does not include investigations into terrorist financing, or other crimes
that terrorists are likely to commit. As a result, a federal judge sitting
in New York would be able to issue a search warrant that is valid in
California in an investigation of a plot to bomb a building, but arguably
could not issue the same warrant if the investigation concerned the raising
of money to support terrorist operations.

This provision would expand the types of terrorism crimes for which judges
may issue search warrants that are valid nationwide. Specifically, it would
authorize nationwide search warrants in investigations of the offenses
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), including computer crimes, attacks on
communications infrastructure, and providing material support to terrorists
or terrorist organizations."

Regarding credit reports...

This provision would enable the government to obtain credit reports on
virtually the same terms that private entities may. Specifically, it would
amend § 1681b(a)(1) to allow law enforcement officers to obtain credit
reports upon their certification that they will use the information only in
connection with their duties to enforce federal law. This certification
parallels the existing requirement that a private entity must have a
"legitimate business need" before obtaining a credit report. In addition, to
avoid alerting terrorists that they are under investigation, this provision
would prohibit (absent court approval) disclosing to a consumer the fact
that law enforcement has sought his credit report.

As it said, only in connection with their duties to enforce federal law.
There are strict limitations set to prevent the things you seem to be so
afraid of.

It goes on to talk about autopsies...there's allot of stuff there, but
again - if you really READ it, only the most paranois delusions would read
more into it than there is. I don't see how you feel YOUR privacy would be
in any kind of danger by what's stated in this act. It simply gives the
government more leeway regarding terrorist activities. Current laws are too
binding, making for lots of red-tape, the time involved in getting action
makes it fairly impossible to investigate in a timely manner and/or to
prevent such an occurance as 9/11.

The act goes on discussing sharing information between federal agencies, and
speaks of the limitations of the powers and disclosure of information - it
has specific wording to PROTECT individuals from illegal warrants and
activities. It also discusses things like not making available information
on Capitol buildings, such as air-ventilation systems that could be used for
chemical/bio attacks, and so forth.

I'm not going to go over EVERY word in it. The bottom line is that there is
more in there that would protect you from illegal government activities. The
only people that would have anything to fear would be those that are
involved in terrorist activities, domestic OR foreign, as the government
would have the ability to act faster without having to jump through
beaurocratic hoops to stop those that would commit terrorist activities.

After reading the ENTIRE thing over again, I can't see what you're so afraid
of, unless you have something to fear regarding what is discussed within it.

What is it, specifically, that you find so frightening?

Q

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 3:36:15 PM4/22/03

to

"Michael Moore" <m.m...@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:3EA4BA71...@NOSPAMutoronto.ca...

Was only referring to HIM. Some of my best friends are British...Even
Canadians...

;-)

Q

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 3:56:06 PM4/22/03

to

"Ross Archer" <arc...@topnow.com> wrote

> Noel wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 09:35:17 GMT, "Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> > >And you need a refresher course on what a fascist is. They're
socialists -
> > >and it doesn't take a college degree to know who THAT represents.
>
> Socialists are left-wing. Fascists are right-wing.
> Fascism is strongly pro-corporate and anti-labor. Socialism
> is strongly anti-corporate and pro-labor.
>
> Your ignorance is showing. Go for that college degree. It
> might do you some good.

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and
persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population
based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.
Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is
considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or
origin.
Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation
and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific
segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. One
segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second
class.

Conditions that foster and fuel fascism are:

The existence of considerable declassed social elements

Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific
group defined by race, origin, theology or association.

Greed: The motivator of fascism which is generally associated with land,
space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed.

"Fascism concentrates each imperialist bloc (business and government
sectors) into a single economic unit while concurrently increasing
in-fighting and distrust between the units fostering advancement towards
war."

Now, THAT sounds more like the Democratic line, and sounds more like
socialism. Remember Clinton's attempt to take over the health care system?

"Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy, junk science and obscuratinism.
Fascism combines Marxist critiques of capitalism and bourgeois definitions
of democracy to force its issues, confuse logic and create majority
consensus between targeted groups."

Hmm...you'd have to be pretty thick to miss that one. The liberals are known
for trying to create rifts within society, claiming to be "for" the people,
minorities, etc., but always making a point of pointing out differences
between skin color and so forth. Instead of trying to unite people and
search for TRUE equality, they make the differences blaring and put them
under neon signs, going to opposite extremes (reverse discrimination and so
forth) to make sure that the rifts in society continue. They are not about
enabling, they are about making certain that people SEE differences.
Demagogy? Now, who would THAT define? Obscuratinism? Hmm...the selective
memory of a former President who couldn't remember anything on the witness
stand who is now writing a book about all of the things he now has
miraculously remembered?

"Both Bourgeois Democracy and Fascism are class dictatorships that use
organized violence to maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the
oppressed. The difference between the two is demonstrated by the policies
towards non-proletarian classes. Fascism attains power through the
substitution of one state form of class domination by another form,
generally bourgeois democracy segues into an open terrorist dictatorship."

Now, which group or groups involve themselves in "organized violence"?

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 6:07:04 PM4/22/03

to

Brenda Ann wrote:

> Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
> on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
> attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??

Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
ballot yet. Despite this and the fact that a federal judge kept inner
city voting districts open past closing time as well as the fact that
there were serious allegations of fraud and corruption, Ashcroft decided
not to contest the election results even though it was his right to do
so. Yes, it is plain to see that Ashcroft is a big old Nazi. After all,
Nazis are always saying things like "I reject any legal challenge to
this election. ... I will discourage others from challenging the will of
the people in the election of their United States Senator. I lost this
race because I didn't get as many votes as my opponent did." I seem to
remember one candidate in the 2000 election making a big stink while
contesting election results. What was his name, again?

If your grandfather thinks that there are any parallels between the
Republican Party of today and the Nazi Party of the 1930s, he is either
intellectually dishonest or senile. The fact that he has not fled the
USA as he fled Germany shows that he is not scared in the slightest.

- Kevin

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 7:19:17 PM4/22/03

to

Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
> Brenda Ann wrote:
>
> > Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
> > on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> > started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> > there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> > hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
> > attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> > you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??
>
> Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
> a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
> Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
> ballot yet.

Actually, he lost to a dead guy, who convieniently died in a
plane crash.
But that, nor Ashcroft's sportsmanship with respect to
losing, is relevant.

What *is* relevant is that Ashcroft and crew have codified
the elimination of the Fourth Amendment, abolished due
process, and make it possible to "disappear" even a citizen
under color of federal authority.

This is not an exaggeration, but literally true. I suggest
you wake up. Ashcroft *IS* a totalitarian, whether he's a
good sport about losing or not.

-- Ross

N8KDV

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 7:25:48 PM4/22/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> > Brenda Ann wrote:
> >
> > > Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
> > > on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> > > started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> > > there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> > > hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
> > > attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> > > you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??
> >
> > Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
> > a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
> > Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
> > ballot yet.
>
> Actually, he lost to a dead guy, who convieniently died in a
> plane crash.
> But that, nor Ashcroft's sportsmanship with respect to
> losing, is relevant.
>
> What *is* relevant is that Ashcroft and crew have codified
> the elimination of the Fourth Amendment, abolished due
> process, and make it possible to "disappear" even a citizen
> under color of federal authority.

Please show us the relevent text that could "allow" this to happen.. don't send us
to a site... show us the site, and quote the relevent text.

>
>
> This is not an exaggeration, but literally true.

I doubt that, I think perhaps that you are just a bit paranoid for some reason.

> I suggest
> you wake up. Ashcroft *IS* a totalitarian, whether he's a
> good sport about losing or not.

I think you might be better off posting about the State of California, and how it's
going broke, in rather rapid fashion.

N8KDV

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 7:33:29 PM4/22/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> > Brenda Ann wrote:
> >
> > > Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
> > > on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> > > started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> > > there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> > > hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
> > > attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> > > you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??
> >
> > Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
> > a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
> > Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
> > ballot yet.
>
> Actually, he lost to a dead guy, who convieniently died in a
> plane crash.

Convenient? How so?

>
> But that, nor Ashcroft's sportsmanship with respect to
> losing, is relevant.

Not relevent? But somehow your delusional ramblings and paranoid ideas are? Come on
Ross...

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 8:14:00 PM4/22/03

to

N8KDV wrote:
>
> Ross Archer wrote:
>
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> > >
> > > Brenda Ann wrote:
> > >
> > > > Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
> > > > on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> > > > started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> > > > there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> > > > hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
> > > > attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> > > > you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??
> > >
> > > Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
> > > a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
> > > Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
> > > ballot yet.
> >
> > Actually, he lost to a dead guy, who convieniently died in a
> > plane crash.
>
> Convenient? How so?

It's convenient for the opposition. We all know that light
plane crashes occur frequently.
I very much doubt it's more than a co-incidence. It's just
very convieniently timed. :(

>
> >
> > But that, nor Ashcroft's sportsmanship with respect to
> > losing, is relevant.
>
> Not relevent? But somehow your delusional ramblings and paranoid ideas are? Come on
> Ross...

Not delusional, but based on legal analysis of what the Acts
actually say and allow:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 8:14:06 PM4/22/03

to

N8KDV wrote:
>
> Ross Archer wrote:
>
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> > >
> > > Brenda Ann wrote:
> > >
> > > > Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
> > > > on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
> > > > started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
> > > > there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
> > > > hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
> > > > attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
> > > > you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??
> > >
> > > Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
> > > a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
> > > Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
> > > ballot yet.
> >
> > Actually, he lost to a dead guy, who convieniently died in a
> > plane crash.
>
> Convenient? How so?

It's convenient for the opposition. We all know that light

plane crashes occur frequently.
I very much doubt it's more than a co-incidence. It's just
very convieniently timed. :(
>
> >

> > But that, nor Ashcroft's sportsmanship with respect to
> > losing, is relevant.
>
> Not relevent? But somehow your delusional ramblings and paranoid ideas are? Come on
> Ross...

Not delusional, but based on legal analysis of what the Acts
actually say and allow:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

>
> >
> >

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 8:16:10 PM4/22/03

to

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

A little research will show it holds up.

>
> >
> >
> > This is not an exaggeration, but literally true.
>
> I doubt that, I think perhaps that you are just a bit paranoid for some reason.
>
> > I suggest
> > you wake up. Ashcroft *IS* a totalitarian, whether he's a
> > good sport about losing or not.
>
> I think you might be better off posting about the State of California, and how it's
> going broke, in rather rapid fashion.

Because, in large measure, the oilmen raped the state's
economy with illegal price-fixing and cartel activity. The
FERC has already shown that to be true. Cheney *still*
won't release the attendee list of his energy commission.
One suspects it's because Enron and other embarassing crooks
were present.

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:19:42 PM4/22/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>Brenda Ann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Excuse the hell out of me.. my grandfather lived through those times too...
>>>on the German end of the equation. He left before the war outside Germany
>>>started, and came to the US. Even HE sees the parallels in what happened
>>>there in the '30's and what is happening in the US now.. and it scares the
>>>hell out of him. It does me, too.. and should scare anyone who actually pays
>>>attention to what Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch and a few others are up to. Have
>>>you bothered to READ the text of Patriot II??
>>
>>Folks who throw accusations of Nazism at Ashcroft et al. always give me
>>a tickle. They never seem to remember that in 2000, Ashcroft lost his
>>Senate seat to a person who did not run for office and was not on the
>>ballot yet.
>
>
> Actually, he lost to a dead guy, who convieniently died in a
> plane crash.

What would be an inconvenient way for the dead man to die?

> But that, nor Ashcroft's sportsmanship with respect to
> losing, is relevant.

But it is. How do you reconcile how his actions in the aftermath of the
election with your claim that he is a totalitarian.

> What *is* relevant is that Ashcroft and crew have codified
> the elimination of the Fourth Amendment, abolished due
> process, and make it possible to "disappear" even a citizen
> under color of federal authority.

How interesting. I always thought that the AG and his "crew", as you so
quaintly put it, were members of the executive branch and therefore
codified nothing (CFR aside). Please provide a citation to this
codification of the elimination of the 4th Amendment. For some reason,
my con law professor overlooked this event.

> This is not an exaggeration, but literally true.

Then you shall have no trouble citing the relevant statute(s).

> I suggest
> you wake up. Ashcroft *IS* a totalitarian, whether he's a
> good sport about losing or not.

I see. Tell me what makes him a totalitarian.

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:25:06 PM4/22/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Please read what N8KDV said. He said to quote the relevant text of the
statute. Put up. If all that's needed is a little research, as you say,
you should have no trouble.

- Kevin

Michael Bryant

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:43:57 PM4/22/03

to

>From: "Q" Q...@Q.invalid.com

Wow. Thanks for that rant. No question about your objectivity! You can't even
see the internal contradictions in your own nonsense, can you?

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:48:22 PM4/22/03

to

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

Note: There is no dispute about people being held
incommunicado, with no access to legal counsel, on the mere
suspicion of involvement with terrorism. And there's also
little doubt that the government will detain them as long as
it pleases, without showing proof of guilt unless it suits
them.

If this is not a complete violation of fourth amendment and
due-process rights, then I can't think of an example that
would impress you as unconstitutional.

>
> > I suggest
> > you wake up. Ashcroft *IS* a totalitarian, whether he's a
> > good sport about losing or not.
>
> I see. Tell me what makes him a totalitarian.

The fact he favors broad surveillance powers and the
establishment of a police state, perhaps?

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:58:10 PM4/22/03

to

The entire document is available off the link I posted. At
any rate, the mere fact that people (including a couple of
US citizens) have been detained without being charged with a
crime, and whose names cannot be determined, and who have
never had the right to face their accusers and understand
the charges against them or consult legal counsel, is
sufficient in and of itself, of concluding that this
Administration is a rogue and criminal enterprise that
disregards the law and arrogates to itself powers it has no
right to exercise.

The known facts above are sufficient. No further proof of
ill-intent and criminality is required.

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 9:58:24 PM4/22/03

to

The entire document is available off the link I posted. At

RHF

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 10:31:46 PM4/22/03

to

"Q",

I Read It All...

"Now, which group or groups involve themselves in "organized violence"?"

So Now Can You Reveal Which GROUP it is that We Should Be Concerned With?

I Want To Know ~ RHF
.
.
= = = "Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote in message news:<q7hpa.146003
= = = $0X.30...@twister.columbus.rr.com>...

RHF

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 10:43:07 PM4/22/03

to

BA,

What is the History of the Patriots Act II ?

When did the Work on it begin ?

Who were the 'Original Drafters' of the Patriots II ?

Did it start with the current Bush Administration . . .
- Or In-Fact
- - Did It Start with
- - - The Former Clinton Administration ? ? ?

I Want To Know ~ RHF
.
.

= = = "Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
= = = news:<b832h0$dc6$1...@news1.kornet.net>...

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 10:28:12 PM4/22/03

to

Q wrote:
> "Ross Archer" <arc...@topnow.com> wrote
>
>
>>Noel wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 09:35:17 GMT, "Q" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And you need a refresher course on what a fascist is. They're
>>>
> socialists -
>
>>>>and it doesn't take a college degree to know who THAT represents.
>>>
>>Socialists are left-wing. Fascists are right-wing.
>>Fascism is strongly pro-corporate and anti-labor. Socialism
>>is strongly anti-corporate and pro-labor.
>>
>>Your ignorance is showing. Go for that college degree. It
>>might do you some good.
>
>
> The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and
> persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population
> based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.
> Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is
> considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or
> origin.

But when it's based on wealth, it's a "good" thing.

> Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation
> and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific
> segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. One
> segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second
> class.

Again, if you have money, then you have access to the better
tier of the legal system.

> Conditions that foster and fuel fascism are:
>
> The existence of considerable declassed social elements
>
> Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific
> group defined by race, origin, theology or association.
> Greed: The motivator of fascism which is generally associated with land,
> space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed.

Hello! Greed is the central ingredient in the free market.

> "Fascism concentrates each imperialist bloc (business and government
> sectors) into a single economic unit while concurrently increasing
> in-fighting and distrust between the units fostering advancement towards
> war."

"A single economic unit". That is exactly how the US
government acts in terms of foreign trade (tariffs) and
foreign policy. "Concentrating each imperialist bloc"
translates into "rationalization" in the corporate world.
"In-fighting" is another word for competition (and is
contrary to "single economic unit"). Your point?

> Now, THAT sounds more like the Democratic line, and sounds more like
> socialism.

How so?

> Remember Clinton's attempt to take over the health care system?

Providing universal health care doesn't exactly foster
advancement towards war. What's your problem with
socialized medicine (some consider medicine a public good)?

> "Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy, junk science and obscuratinism.

You mean like Creationism?

> Fascism combines Marxist critiques of capitalism and bourgeois definitions
> of democracy to force its issues, confuse logic and create majority
> consensus between targeted groups."

How so?

> Hmm...you'd have to be pretty thick to miss that one. The liberals are known
> for trying to create rifts within society,

As opposed to pretending the rifts do not already exist?
Sure, let's pretend the playing field is level -- not.

> claiming to be "for" the people,
> minorities, etc., but always making a point of pointing out differences
> between skin color and so forth. Instead of trying to unite people and
> search for TRUE equality, they make the differences blaring and put them
> under neon signs, going to opposite extremes (reverse discrimination and so
> forth) to make sure that the rifts in society continue.

Ensuring that some previously oppressed groups have access
to better futures is sure going to bring the country down, huh?

> They are not about
> enabling, they are about making certain that people SEE differences.

They are about both -- there *are* differences.

> Demagogy? Now, who would THAT define? Obscuratinism? Hmm...the selective
> memory of a former President who couldn't remember anything on the witness
> stand who is now writing a book about all of the things he now has
> miraculously remembered?

Perhaps it defines a political party overly obsessed with
uncovering blow jobs?

> "Both Bourgeois Democracy and Fascism are class dictatorships that use
> organized violence to maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the
> oppressed. The difference between the two is demonstrated by the policies
> towards non-proletarian classes. Fascism attains power through the
> substitution of one state form of class domination by another form,
> generally bourgeois democracy segues into an open terrorist dictatorship."
>
> Now, which group or groups involve themselves in "organized violence"?

You're probably going to tell us.

--
M2

Brenda Ann

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 10:54:58 PM4/22/03

to

"RHF" <rhf-...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:3ef6beca.03042...@posting.google.com...

> BA,
>
> What is the History of the Patriots Act II ?
>
> When did the Work on it begin ?
>
> Who were the 'Original Drafters' of the Patriots II ?
>
> Did it start with the current Bush Administration . . .
> - Or In-Fact
> - - Did It Start with
> - - - The Former Clinton Administration ? ? ?
>
>
> I Want To Know ~ RHF

Both Patriot Acts were drafted by the current administration, the Justice
Department to be precise. Congress had some input on the original, but
almost none on PAII. Hopefully, before it is ramrodded through, there will
be open discussion, including a public forum.

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 10:40:28 PM4/22/03

to

Gogarty wrote:
> In article <9dMla.512$C14...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
> otto...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>>
>>Why am I reminded of the propaganda stories in WW I of "Huns" throwing
>>babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets?
>
>
> Shucks, you don't have to go back that far. After Iraq annexed Kuwait a well
> orchestrated campaign run by a U.S. PR company had the Iraqis disconnecting
> life support from premature babies in Kuwait hospitals. Turned out there was
> not a gram of truth in it -- made up out of whole cloth.

Example from Gulf War I: "dead babies".
It seems that Nijirah-al Sabah, the daughter of the Kuwaiti
ambassador in Washington, described how she had watched
Iraqi soldiers looting incubators to take back to Baghdad,
pitching the Kuwaiti babies out onto the cold floor to die.

Except it never happened. Two Filipina nurses who worked in
the maternity ward in question said they had never seen Ms.
Al Sabah in their lives. Amnesty admitted being duped, and
Middle East Watch confirmed the fabrication. Bush Sr.
mentioned the "incubator babies" seven times in his pre-war
rallying speeches.

--
M2

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:09:43 PM4/22/03

to

Brenda Ann wrote:

> "RHF" <rhf-...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:3ef6beca.03042...@posting.google.com...
>
>>BA,
>>
>>What is the History of the Patriots Act II ?
>>
>>When did the Work on it begin ?
>>
>>Who were the 'Original Drafters' of the Patriots II ?
>>
>>Did it start with the current Bush Administration . . .
>>- Or In-Fact
>>- - Did It Start with
>>- - - The Former Clinton Administration ? ? ?
>>
>>
>>I Want To Know ~ RHF
>
>
> Both Patriot Acts were drafted by the current administration, the Justice
> Department to be precise. Congress had some input on the original, but
> almost none on PAII.

"Congress had some input". How rich. As if any legislation can get
passed without Congress's say so. Please, take a civics class.

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:00:06 PM4/22/03

to

RHF wrote:
> BA,
>
> What is the History of the Patriots Act II ?
>
> When did the Work on it begin ?
>
> Who were the 'Original Drafters' of the Patriots II ?
>
> Did it start with the current Bush Administration . . .
> - Or In-Fact
> - - Did It Start with
> - - - The Former Clinton Administration ? ? ?
>
>
> I Want To Know ~ RHF

I love a skeptic. :-) It could lead to rational inquiry or
wasted time and bandwidth. Fun, either way.

--
M2

Brenda Ann

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:15:26 PM4/22/03

to

"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8505r$6fb2l$2...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...

> Brenda Ann wrote:
> "Congress had some input". How rich. As if any legislation can get
> passed without Congress's say so. Please, take a civics class.
>
> > Hopefully, before it is ramrodded through, there will
> > be open discussion, including a public forum.
> >

You know full well how the Patriot Act got passed. It was practically
forced through by Bush and Ashcroft. They virtually accused anyone in
Congress that questioned it of being anti-American and a traitor.

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:03:11 PM4/22/03

to

RHF wrote:
> "Q",
>
> I Read It All...
>
> "Now, which group or groups involve themselves in "organized violence"?"
>
> So Now Can You Reveal Which GROUP it is that We Should Be Concerned With?
>
> I Want To Know ~ RHF

Shhh. Quiet!

He means the Liberals.

--
M2

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:19:48 PM4/22/03

to

Brenda Ann wrote:

> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b8505r$6fb2l$2...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Brenda Ann wrote:
>>"Congress had some input". How rich. As if any legislation can get
>>passed without Congress's say so. Please, take a civics class.
>>
>>
>>>Hopefully, before it is ramrodded through, there will
>>>be open discussion, including a public forum.
>>>
>
>
> You know full well how the Patriot Act got passed. It was practically
> forced through by Bush and Ashcroft.

Really? Please tell us how it was railroaded through both houses of
Congress.

> They virtually accused anyone in
> Congress that questioned it of being anti-American and a traitor.

I see. When did they do that?

- Kevin

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:21:02 PM4/22/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Why are you answering a question that I did not ask?

> The known facts above are sufficient. No further proof of
> ill-intent and criminality is required.

Perhaps I used words that were too large. Please cite the relevant text
of the statute that you find to be objectionable.

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:06:47 PM4/22/03

to

But he calls it "law and order". LOL.

--
M2

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:27:03 PM4/22/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

I see that you have confused an editorial by a goofy bitch with a
proposed statute.

> Note: There is no dispute about people being held
> incommunicado, with no access to legal counsel, on the mere
> suspicion of involvement with terrorism. And there's also
> little doubt that the government will detain them as long as
> it pleases, without showing proof of guilt unless it suits
> them.

Since there is no dispute, you should have no problem quoting the
language of the statute.

> If this is not a complete violation of fourth amendment and
> due-process rights, then I can't think of an example that
> would impress you as unconstitutional.

Except you have yet to back of your claims of codification. Try again.

>>>I suggest
>>>you wake up. Ashcroft *IS* a totalitarian, whether he's a
>>>good sport about losing or not.
>>
>>I see. Tell me what makes him a totalitarian.
>
> The fact he favors broad surveillance powers and the
> establishment of a police state, perhaps?

Please quote exactly what he has said regarding this.

- Kevin

Michael Moore

unread,

Apr 22, 2003, 11:45:56 PM4/22/03

to

The editorial contains the link.

<snip>

--
M2

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 12:15:45 AM4/23/03

to

Michael Moore wrote:

That's very nice, but I didn't ask for a link. I asked for him to cite
the objection language of the statute.

> <snip>
>
> --
> M2
>

RHF

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 3:59:18 AM4/23/03

to

= = = "Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message

= = = news:<b84tco$3fk$1...@news1.kornet.net>...

> "RHF" <rhf-...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:3ef6beca.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > BA,
> >
> > What is the History of the Patriots Act II ?
> >
> > When did the Work on it begin ?
> >
> > Who were the 'Original Drafters' of the Patriots II ?
> >
> > Did it start with the current Bush Administration . . .
> > - Or In-Fact
> > - - Did It Start with
> > - - - The Former Clinton Administration ? ? ?
> >
> >
> > I Want To Know ~ RHF
>

.

> Both Patriot Acts were drafted by the current administration,

ARE YOU SURE... OR JUST REPEATING AN URBAN LEGEND ?
- - - Go Back and Check the Facts.

> the Justice Department to be precise.

YES - Career Personal in the Justice Department Did the Ground Work.
- - - Administrations Come and Go
- - - Both Repubicans and Democrats
- - - But the Bureaucrats are Always With Us.

> Congress had some input on the original, but almost none on PAII.

SO... The US Congress FAILED To Do Its Job.
- - - It's Only a Balanced Power System when . . .
- - - The US Congress and the Courts Stand-Up to
- - - The Executive Branch

> Hopefully, before it is ramrodded through,

CAN'T Be Ram Rodded Through "IF" the US Congress Does It's Job [.]
- - - Have You Written Your US Congress Persons and Visited Their Offices?

> there will be open discussion, including a public forum.

HOPE To See You "IN" the Crowd.

~ RHF

.

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 8:33:34 PM4/23/03

to

Virtually any section, taken at random, is objectionable.
It's a PDF. I'm not wasting my time retyping it for
stonewalling fools like you who call excellent scholarship
the work of a "goofy bitch". She's way better and smarter
than you are, obviously.

-- Ross

>
> > <snip>
> >
> > --
> > M2
> >

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 9:37:01 PM4/23/03

to

There's so much to choose from that's utterly unacceptable.
The technical language and vagueness of meaning make this
Act very dangerous.

A typical example. Read section 201: Prohibition of
Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information.

I'm not going to retype it all. The highlights are:

1. "Publicizing the fact that a particular alien has been
detained could alert his coconspirators about the extent of
the federal investigation and the imminence of their own
detention...." [Is it just me, or is this saying we can
keep detentions secret? No, it's not just me. It's fact.]

2. "This provision thus establishes a specific authority
under Exception 3 of the FOIA to clarify what is already
implicit in various FOIA exemptions: the government need not
disclose information [haha, like the names of detainees, or
even the fact that some unknown person is detained, see #1
above] about individuals detained in investigations of
terrorism until disclosure occurs routinely upon the
initiation of criminal charges."

These DISHONEST LYING BASTARDS are changing the intent of
the Freedom of Information Act by stealth, re-defining
"information about an investigation" to mean the names of
detainees, so that even their families have no right to know
they are being held and why. Also, it's a fact that
detainees are being held indefinitely without "initiation of
criminal charges", today, in Guantanamo Bay. So the
"criminal charges" that start the disclosure process need
never occur.

We know this is the intent given the phrase from #1 above,
and real-life examples in the G.Bay camps.

Thus, this provision is tantamount to allowing any person to
be rounded up and disappeared indefinitely, without charges
(and thus, without the ability to defend oneself against
said charges.) Jail by suspicion. But it's EVEN WORSE THAN
THIS. The detainee need not even have to be suspected of
terrorism. Merely an "individual detained in investigations
of terrorism". They could be witnesses, or less, and be
"detained in investigations."

QED. Ashcroft is human totalitarian shit. That's a
figurative fact.

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 9:46:47 PM4/23/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Then you should have no problem finding some to quote to me.

> It's a PDF. I'm not wasting my time retyping it for
> stonewalling fools like you who call excellent scholarship
> the work of a "goofy bitch".

No need to type. Just copy and paste.

> She's way better and smarter
> than you are, obviously.

How is that obvious? Particularly, I would like for you to explain how
she is better than me. I did not know that it was possible for one human
being to be better than another human being.

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 9:54:56 PM4/23/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

I see. Technical language per se is dangerous. Yet, it is vague at the
same time. Wow.

> A typical example. Read section 201: Prohibition of
> Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information.
>
> I'm not going to retype it all. The highlights are:
>
> 1. "Publicizing the fact that a particular alien has been
> detained could alert his coconspirators about the extent of
> the federal investigation and the imminence of their own
> detention...." [Is it just me, or is this saying we can
> keep detentions secret? No, it's not just me. It's fact.]
>
> 2. "This provision thus establishes a specific authority
> under Exception 3 of the FOIA to clarify what is already
> implicit in various FOIA exemptions: the government need not
> disclose information [haha, like the names of detainees, or
> even the fact that some unknown person is detained, see #1
> above] about individuals detained in investigations of
> terrorism until disclosure occurs routinely upon the
> initiation of criminal charges."
>
> These DISHONEST LYING BASTARDS are changing the intent of
> the Freedom of Information Act by stealth, re-defining
> "information about an investigation" to mean the names of
> detainees, so that even their families have no right to know
> they are being held and why.

How has this changed the intent of the FOIA? At any rate, the intent of
a law is irrelevant. The intent of the law is what you worry about
BEFORE you make the law. AFTER you make the law, you worry about the
letter of the law.

> Also, it's a fact that
> detainees are being held indefinitely without "initiation of
> criminal charges", today, in Guantanamo Bay.

Yes, that is true. Of course, GITMO is not US soil, so I am curious as
to your point.

> So the
> "criminal charges" that start the disclosure process need
> never occur.
>
> We know this is the intent given the phrase from #1 above,
> and real-life examples in the G.Bay camps.
>
> Thus, this provision is tantamount to allowing any person to
> be rounded up and disappeared indefinitely,

I see that you have trouble reading. Note that the statute refers to
aliens. Therefore, it does not apply to any person. You sure spent a lot
of time copying and pasting just to end up being wrong.

> without charges
> (and thus, without the ability to defend oneself against
> said charges.) Jail by suspicion. But it's EVEN WORSE THAN
> THIS. The detainee need not even have to be suspected of
> terrorism. Merely an "individual detained in investigations
> of terrorism". They could be witnesses, or less, and be
> "detained in investigations."

Gee, wow. That's really dangerous. Good thing we have nothing like that
now called "state's evidence".

> QED. Ashcroft is human totalitarian shit. That's a
> figurative fact.

Um, could you point to the part of the above text that Ashcroft penned? TIA!

> -- Ross

- Kevin

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 9:58:00 PM4/23/03

to

You didn't? So Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and Pol Pot are all
equally good?

Hmm. :)

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:01:46 PM4/23/03

to

You didn't? So Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and Pol Pot are all
equally good?

Hmm. :)

Kevin, read the bleeding document. It does wild things like
make it possible to strip citizenship from US-born people
(thus removing the higher constitutional protections they
enjoy.)

It's so full of pen registers and surveillance enhancements,
many of which (if you read carefully) can apply to anybody,
so long as somebody says it's relevant to a terrorism
investigation. It establishes a list of terrorist
suspects. You have no way to find out if you're on the
list, or any way to get your name removed if there's been an
error.

The list is so long that I refer you to the excellent and
thorough analysis by the "goofy chick" you so
idiotically dismissed. :)

That's all I have time for. You can educate yourself, or
continue to wallow in ignorance and demand I spoon-feed
you. That's your choice. I'm through casting pearls.

Brenda Ann

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:05:02 PM4/23/03

to

"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message

news:b87g5n$6q02r$9...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...

>
> Yes, that is true. Of course, GITMO is not US soil, so I am curious as
> to your point.

Sorry, but GITMO IS U.S. soil. Just as any other U.S. military base or
embassy, regardless of it's physical location. What I'm still trying to
figure out after all these years is why we still HAVE a base on Cuba. So far
as I know, it's the only base we have in a Marxist country.

"Q"

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:07:02 PM4/23/03

to

"Ross Archer" <arc...@topnow.com> wrote

> > > What *is* relevant is that Ashcroft and crew have codified
> > > the elimination of the Fourth Amendment, abolished due
> > > process, and make it possible to "disappear" even a citizen
> > > under color of federal authority.
> >

> > Please show us the relevant text that could "allow" this to happen..
don't send us
> > to a site... show us the site, and quote the relevant text.
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

A little research? you see? This type of journalism is exactly what I'm
talking about - she uses selective quotes, and omits what she decides could
hurt her argument. For example, after seven paragraphs of babbling, she
points to one part of the act referring to consumer credit reports. Truth be
told, what she quotes is only PART of a paragraph in the act, and she
selectively omits the fact that there are allot of checks and balances
built-in, and only gives authority, under strict guidelines, in
investigations of terrorism.
If you people are not terrorists or have no dealings with terrorists -
foreign or domestic, I don't see what it is you're so paranoid about.
Do yourself a favor - and the REST of us - READ the proposed act - ALL of
it, not just the parts that support your paranoid delusions. You people are
REALLY pathetic.

Her further reference regarding DNA is ludicrous - she's completely twisted
the words, if not meaning of the part of the act she's babbling about. To
wit:

Section 302: Collection and Use of Identification Information from Suspected
Terrorists and Other Sources.
Current law permits the FBI to establish an index to collect DNA
identification records of persons convicted of certain crimes, and DNA
samples recovered from crime scenes and unidentified human remains. 42
U.S.C. § 14132. However, the law does not directly address the FBI's
authority to collect and use DNA samples of terrorists or those suspected of
terrorism. It would be extremely beneficial to clarify how DNA samples from
suspects, such as samples taken from unlawful combatants at Guantanaino Bay,
can be used as necessary for counterterrorism and law-enforcement purposes.
Section 302 would allow the Attorney General or Secretary of Defense to
collect, analyze, and maintain DNA samples and other identification
information from "suspected terrorists"--i.e., (1) persons suspected of
engaging in terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (1) & (5), or
committing an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), or persons
conspiring or attempting to do so; (2) enemy combatants or other battlefield
detainees; 3) persons suspected of being members of a terrorist
organization; and (4) certain classes of aliens including those engaged in
activity that endangers national security.

(and if you READ the other sections mentioned, you'd have to REALLY have to
have something to fear to worry about this)

Section 303: Establishment of Database to Facilitate Investigation and
Prevention of Terrorist Activities.
This provision would allow the Attorney General to establish databases of
DNA records pertaining to the terrorists or suspected terrorists from whom
DNA samples or other identification information have been collected. All
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and probation offices,
would be required to give the Attorney General, for inclusion in the
databases, any DNA records, fingerprints, or other identification
information that can be collected under this Subtitle. This provision also
allows the Attorney General to use the information to detect, investigate,
prosecute, prevent, or respond to terrorist activities, or other unlawful
activities by suspected terrorists. In addition, the Attorney General would
be able to share the information with other federal, state, local, or
foreign agencies for the same purposes.

Section 304: Definitions.
This section would establish definitions for the terms "DNA sample" and "DNA
analysis." It also would define "suspected terrorist," which describes the
class of individuals from whom the Attorney General may acquire DNA samples
and other identification information, and whose information may be included
in DNA databases.

Section 305: Existing Authorities.
This provision would establish that the new authorities created by this
Subtitle are in addition toy authorities that may exist under any other
source of law. It also would provide that this Subtitle shall not construed
to preclude the receipt, collection, analysis, maintenance, or dissemination
of evidence or information pursuant to any other source of law.

Now, unless you support terrorism, what the HELL do you think you have to
worry about?
I'll answer that for you - what you REALLY need to worry about is nuts like
this trying to scare the hell out of honest, law-abiding citizens for
nothing - sounds like the IO memo that went around that the Republicans
accidentally got ahold of regarding the Dems and their idea of using scare
tactics to try to discredit their Social Security plan (this really did
happen).

For example, she goes on to say...

"It might also include protesters, or anyone else the government dislikes.
Remember, the original USA Patriot Act defined the new crime of "domestic
terrorism" broadly, to encompass "any action that endangers human life that
is a violation of any Federal or State law."

Now if her "might" isn't paranoid, I don't know what is. If you read the
original act, related acts, and proposed legislation, there's no way in HELL
you could extrapolate THAT conclusion from the data available - unless
you're paranoid and like conspiracy theories.
Why the hell would you want to scare people needlessly? Is she really that
hard-up for attention?

She babbles on...

"Certainly one could envision a disruptive war protester who resisted arrest
being tagged as a "suspected domestic terrorist," and forced to provide DNA.
Would the government need to get a court order to procure the DNA? Not under
Patriot II."

Bull. And if she really read it, she knows it's bull. What should we do -
let our country turn into France? Is that what this is all about? They won't
even recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Is that what kind of
country you want to live in? If so, I suggest you move to France. But
perhaps you should read THIS first:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

She then goes on to further babble about protesters. Is that what she's
afraid of? That people blocking interstate commerce and some of the other
"peaceful" acts they're so fond of would be considered terrorists? By
definition, they ARE, and should be treated as such. A peaceful
demonstration in a park or other contained area that does not harm property
or commerce is a threat to nobody. But the whackos don't want to do that -
they want to do as much harm as they can to get the most attention they can.
And when others that oppose their viewpoint try to gather, like what
happened in Washington, DC, they try to block traffic and busses from
arriving there. They DESERVE to be arrested. And if their not-so-peaceful
actions are viewed as being terrorist in nature, well, as Sgt. Vincent
Carter once put it, "tough noogies". They KNOW what the law is regarding
protests and demonstrations, and they also should know a bit about common
sense. The way they act, so "peacefully", is anything BUT, and the attention
they get from their actions is negative - they don't get it - their actions
tend to piss more people off than anything.

She goes on...

"Incredibly, DNA would also be collected from anyone who is, or has been, on
probation for any crime, no matter how minor. State governments would be
required to collect DNA samples from state probationers and provide them to
the federal government."

Really? That's not what it says...

"...to establish an index to collect DNA identification records of persons
convicted of certain crimes, and DNA samples recovered from crime scenes and
unidentified human remains."

"It would be extremely beneficial to clarify how DNA samples from suspects,
such as samples taken from unlawful combatants at Guantanaino Bay, can be
used as necessary for counterterrorism and law-enforcement purposes. Section
302 would allow the Attorney General or Secretary of Defense to collect,
analyze, and maintain DNA samples and other identification information from
"suspected terrorists"--i.e., (1) persons suspected of engaging in terrorism
as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (1) & (5), or committing an offense described
in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), or persons conspiring or attempting to do so;
(2) enemy combatants or other battlefield detainees; (3) persons suspected
of being members of a terrorist organization; and (4) certain classes of
aliens including those engaged in activity that endangers national
security."

Section 303: Establishment of Database to Facilitate Investigation and
Prevention of Terrorist Activities.
This provision would allow the Attorney General to establish databases of
DNA records pertaining to the terrorists or suspected terrorists from whom
DNA samples or other identification information have been collected. All
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and probation offices,
would be required to give the Attorney General, for inclusion in the
databases, any DNA records, fingerprints, or other identification
information that can be collected under this Subtitle. This provision also
allows the Attorney General to use the information to detect, investigate,
prosecute, prevent, or respond to terrorist activities, or other unlawful
activities by suspected terrorists. In addition, the Attorney General would
be able to share the information with other federal, state, local, or
foreign agencies for the same purposes.

Section 304: Definitions.
This section would establish definitions for the terms "DNA sample" and "DNA
analysis." It also would define "suspected terrorist," which describes the
class of individuals from whom the Attorney General may acquire DNA samples
and other identification information, and whose information may be included
in DNA databases.

Section 306: Conditions of Release.
This provision would amend several portions of the United States Code to
clarify that terrorists or suspected terrorists who are under any form of
federal supervision or conditional release, including parole, are subject to
this Subtitle's provisions. These individuals would be in the physical
custody of the United States but for an act of governmental discretion. This
section would require such individuals to cooperate in the collection of a
DNA sample as a condition of supervision or conditional release.

Now...did you all read this? It says NOTHING about collecting DNA samples
from just "anybody" - it specifically mentions those that are terrorists or
suspected of terrorist activities.

So where did she get this all-inclusive "anybody"? She obviously selectively
reads, then translates to try to make it fit her argument. She's another who
assumes that others will not read it, and will just go about babbling the
same nonsense that she is, because they read what SHE wrote, and will then
use that to support their arguments, the facts be damned.

She continues...

"To assess the change, it's important to remember that the Patriot Act
itself already greatly expanded surveillance powers. Now Patriot II would,
if enacted, makes it even easier for the government to engage in
surveillance of U.S. citizens, without having to establish traditional
probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. It would do so by making it
easier for law enforcement to avail itself of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, which issues warrants more easily than federal district
courts will. "

This is utter nonsense. Once again, in her twisted little mind, she rewrites
the whole damn thing. Read the entire next section, and tell me if you
really can in any way extrapolate her delusions from it. First, regarding
the Fourth Amendment (without her translation):

"Section 123: Extension of Authorized Periods Relating to Surveillance and
Searches in Investigations of Terrorist Activities.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court held for
the first time that government wiretapping was subject to the Fourth
Amendment. In response, Congress enacted Title III of the 1968 Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, which governs
electronic surveillance for all federal criminal offenses. Congress also
subsequently enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18
U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712, which addresses government access to stored
communications, and established statutory standards and procedures for the
use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127.
Further, because Katz and progeny specifically stated that the Court did not
hold that the same Fourth Amendment restrictions applied with respect to the
activities of foreign powers and their agents, in 1978 Congress enacted the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862, which
establishes standards applicable to surveillance of foreign powers and
agents of foreign powers--including electronic surveillance, physical
searches, and use of pen registers and trap and trace devices--in relation
to the investigation of such matters as international terrorism and
espionage."

Id. at 322. Because domestic security investigations were subject to Title
III, despite these considerations, the Court invited Congress to legislate
new and different standards for such investigations:

"Given [the] potential distinctions between Title III criminal surveillances
and those involving the domestic security, Congress may wish to consider
protective standards for the latter which differ from those already
prescribed for specified crimes in Title III. Different standards may be
compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation
to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the
protected rights of our citizens."

Those are the only references to the Fourth Amendment, and clearly do
nothing to back-up her claims. If anything, they REFUTE her claims.

Read on...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, some law enforcement agencies--e.g., the New
York City Police Department--entered consent decrees that limit such
agencies from gathering information about organizations and individuals that
may be engaged in terrorist activities and other criminal wrongdoing. See,
e.g., Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 605 F. Supp. 1384 (S.D.N.Y. 1985),
aff'd, 787 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1986). As a result, they lack the ability to
use the full range of investigative techniques that are lawful under the
Constitution, and that are available to the FBI. (For example, the Attorney
General's investigative guidelines authorize agents, subject to certain
restrictions, to attend public places and events "on the same terms and
conditions as members of the public generally.") The consent decrees also
handicap officers in their efforts to share information with other law
enforcement agencies, including federal law enforcement agencies such as the
FBI. These problems threaten to frustrate the operations of the
federal-state-local Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and could prevent effective
cooperation at all levels of government in antiterrorism efforts. As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explained (before
September 11) in discussing one consent decree, as a result of such a decree
"the public safety is insecure and the prerogatives of local government
scorned. To continue federal judicial micromanagement of local
investigations of domestic and international terrorist activities ... is to
undermine the federal system and to trifle with the public safety." Alliance
to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 799, 802 (7th Cir. 2001)."

"This proposal would discontinue most consent decrees that could impede
terrorism investigations conducted by federal, state or local law
enforcement agencies. It would immediately terminate most decrees that were
enacted before September 11, 2001 (including New York City's). All surviving
decrees would have to be necessary to correct a current and ongoing
violation of a Federal right, extend no further than necessary to correct
the violation of the Federal right, and be narrowly drawn and the least
intrusive means to correct the violation. This provision is modeled on the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, which terminated many
prison-related consent decrees and which repeatedly has been upheld by the
courts. Section 312 does not apply to consent decrees or injunctions
remedying discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin, and therefore would not affect decrees or injunctions involving
allegations of racial profiling."

"This provision would amend current extradition law to: (1) authorize the
U.S. to extradite offenders to treaty partners for modern crimes that may
not be included in our older list treaties with those countries; and (2)
provide for on a case-by-case basis and with the approval of the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State extradition from the United States for
serious crimes even in the absence of an extradition treaty."

Now, how the HELL does she draw her far-fetched conclusions? This clearly is
talking about terrorists and terrorism.
As for her mention of FISC, read on...

Section 321: Authority to Seek Search Warrants and Orders to Assist Foreign
States.
28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not clearly authorize the United States to obtain
search warrants in response to requests from foreign governments; it only
clearly applies to subpoenas. Nor is it clear that federal law enforcement
can obtain orders under the pen register/trap and trace statute at foreign
governments' requests. As a result, the United States can seek search
warrants only if we have entered into a treaty with the foreign government
that contains a provision authorizing us to do so (and, naturally, only if
the foreign government has set forth facts sufficient to establish probable
cause). The same is true of pen./trap orders. The United States therefore
may find itself in a situation where it cannot assist a foreign government
in one of its criminal investigations, which is hardly an effective way of
encouraging foreign allies to assist our own counterterrorism
investigations.

"This provision would modify federal law to clarify that the United States
may seek search warrants, pen/trap orders, and ECPA orders, in response to
the requests of foreign governments. Doing so will enhance our ability to
assist foreign law enforcement investigations, as well as promote better
cooperation from foreign allies when we seek evidence from within their
borders."

It then goes on to talk about updating the definition of crimes that are
classified as extraditable,
"to include more modern offenses, such as money laundering, computer crimes,
and certain crimes against children. While some old treaties are
supplemented by newer multilateral terrorism treaties, extradition is
possible under these newer treaties only if the other country is also a
party to the multinational treaty, leaving gaps in coverage. Additionally,
absent a few narrow exceptions, U.S. law permits the extradition of
offenders to a foreign nation only when there is a treaty or convention in
force with that country or a statute conferring such authority upon the
executive branch. See Valentine v. United States, 299 U.S. 5, 8 (1936). At
present, there are close to seventy countries in the world with which the
U.S. has no extradition treaty at all. This means that the U.S. can become a
"safe haven" for some foreign criminals, and that we cannot take advantage
of some countries' willingness to surrender fugitives to us in the absence
of an extradition treaty these nations usually require at least the
possibility of reciprocity."

"This provision would amend current extradition law to: (1) authorize the
U.S. to extradite offenders to treaty partners for modern crimes that may
not be included in our older list treaties with those countries; and (2)
provide for on a case-by-case basis and with the approval of the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State extradition from the United States for
serious crimes even in the absence of an extradition treaty."

I mean, if you really read this stuff, you'd have to go to great lengths to
come to her conclusions, and the babbling of those that are so opposed to
this.

She continues...
"The FISA Court is meant to address international terrorism, involving
mostly noncitizens. Patriot II, however collapses the distinction between
domestic and international terrorism, treating wholly domestic criminal acts
as subject to the same, looser legal rules that apply to foreign
intelligence gathering."

What garbage. Again, only the most paranoid delusions would bring anybody to
such conclusions, and there is NOTHING to support her allegations, other
than what she creates in her mind.

"treating wholly domestic criminal acts as subject to the same.."??? Where
does she get THAT from? Where, in the entire act, does it say ANYTHING like
THAT???

Now, with regard to encryption technology, it states:

Section 404: Use of Encryption to Conceal Criminal Activity.
In recent years, terrorists and other criminals have begun to use encryption
technology to conceal their communications when planning and conducting
criminal activity. Title 18 of the United States Code currently contains no
prohibition on the use of encrypted communications to plan or facilitate
crimes. This proposal would amend federal law to provide that any person
who, during the commission of or the attempt to commit a federal felony,
knowingly and willfully uses encryption technology to conceal any
incriminating communication or information relating to that felony, be
imprisoned for an additional period of not fewer than 5 years. These
additional penalties are warranted to deter the use of encryption technology
to conceal criminal activity...

What is so daunting about that? It says "during the commission of or
attempt to commit a federal felony..." It's like the laws of certain states
regarding things like scanners (wow - radio) - in some states, it's legal to
have a scanner in your vehicle, as long as it's not used in conjunction with
the commission of a crime. Strange, but true. This goes something along
those lines. It doesn't give the government unlimited power to read or
decrypt Joe Smith's encrypted email just because "they want to".
This woman obviously needs some deep mental help - to draw her paranoid
conclusions from what's written here, she has to have some real bad
problems.

She continues...
"Remember, domestic terrorism is defined very broadly as "any action that
endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law."

She can't even quote right, without adding her own words to it. What it says
is:

"..."violent acts or acts dangerous to human life." Thus section 2331
arguably does not include investigations into terrorist financing, or other
crimes that terrorists are likely to commit. As a result, a federal judge
sitting in New York would be able to issue a search warrant that is valid in
California in an investigation of a plot to bomb a building, but arguably
could not issue the same warrant if the investigation concerned the raising
of money to support terrorist operations.

"This provision would expand the types of terrorism crimes for which judges
may issue search warrants that are valid nationwide. Specifically, it would
authorize nationwide search warrants in investigations of the offenses
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), including computer crimes, attacks on
communications infrastructure, and providing material support to terrorists
or terrorist organizations."

So she embellishes the statement by adding her own words: "that is a
violation of any Federal or State law". All this section talks about is
broadening the definition to include things like financing terrorism, as
current laws do not allow for that, even though such acts are directly
related to terrorism. This woman wants to mutate the entire act to fit her
delusions.

She goes on:
"That means anything from getting into a raucous bar fight, to driving
recklessly over the state speed limit, could theoretically count."

How the hell do you get THAT out of it? Where does it say that? Can anyone
debate that this woman is a few fries shy of a happy meal?

And on she goes...
"And if the government finds a particular person suspicious, they could cite
law violations as far from terrorism as these as a valid excuse for
surveillance."

Now, where did she come up with that? By adding more words somewhere? This
is the problem of those that go on and on with conspiracy theories. They'll
quote people like this, and not bother to read the laws or acts that they're
talking about. It's just like all the whiners that keep going on referring
to the UN resolutions, and never bothered to READ them. They just quote some
bilge they heard somebody say, and that's the basis for their "facts". After
once again reading Patriot II, I can find not the slightest hint that this
last allegation is true. To hear her translation, somebody getting caught
pissing on the side of the road at three in the morning in the middle of
nowhere could be placed under surveillance. Get a grip, for God's sake.

The dingbat continues...
"Worse, even those persons who cannot be deemed "domestic terrorists"
because they have not broken any law, can alternatively be deemed "foreign
powers" under Patriot II - even if they are American citizens or permanent
residents. This allows the FBI to get pen registers on American citizens for
a foreign intelligence investigation - without having to show any criminal
or terrorist connection."

What nonsense. Again, she tries to twist the entire act to fit her little
delusions. Here's what it says regarding what she's referring to:

"Any person who engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for

a foreign power would qualify as an "agent of a foreign power," regardless
of whether those activities are federal crimes."

"Groups engaged in international terrorism are included under the definition
of "foreign power" in FISA. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(4). However, for certain
purposes--including the duration of surveillance orders and the definition
of what constitutes a "United States person"--they are effectively excluded
from the concept of foreign powers, and accorded the more protected
treatment that FISA provides to other entities. This section amends FISA so
that international terrorist organizations are consistently treated as
foreign powers for these purposes."

(Nothing there - it just refers to terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Read on...)

"More specifically, there are basically two sets within the FISA definition
of "foreign power" under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a): (i) A paragraph (1)-(3) set,
which includes foreign governments, foreign factions, and entities that
foreign governments openly acknowledge they direct and control. (ii) A
paragraph (4)-(6) set, which includes groups engaged in international
terrorism or preparations therefor, foreign-based political organizations
not substantially composed of U.S. persons, and entities directed and
controlled by foreign governments."

(Nothing there. Pretty straight-forward.)

Now, here's where it goes on -

"Another context in which different types of "foreign powers" are treated
differently is the FISA definition of "United States person." United States
persons have a more protected status under FISA for certain purposes, such
as dissemination of information. The existing definition of "United States
person" in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(i) categorically excludes a corporation or
association which is a foreign power--but only if it falls in the paragraph
(1)-(3) set."

"The effect of the foregoing provisions is that, even if probable cause is
established that a group is an international terrorist organization, it may
be subject only to brief periods of surveillance absent renewal, and it may
be accorded the protected status of a United States person. The amendments
in this section will facilitate the investigation of threats to the national
security posed by such groups by reassigning them to the less protected
status now accorded to foreign powers in the paragraph (1)-(3) set. Thus,
the normal authorization and extension periods for surveillance of
international terrorist organizations would be up to a year, and
corporations and associations which are international terrorist
organizations would not be treated as United States persons under FISA."

"But for U.S. persons, the standard is much higher: in cases involving U.S.
persons, pen registers are only available "to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
"This provision would amend § 1842(a)(1) by eliminating the stricter
standard for U.S. persons. Specifically, FISA pen registers would be
available in investigations of both U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons
whenever they could be used "to obtain foreign intelligence information."

They're talking about terrorists and those that work for or support
terrorist organizations. You have to be pretty demented or get some great
joy out of needlessly scaring the hell out of people to draw the conclusions
that SHE has.

"This section adds terrorist activities, as defined under the amendment of
section 121, and four specific offenses that are likely to be committed by
terrorists (the offenses defined by 18 U.S.C. § 37, 930(c), 956, and 1993),
as explicit predicates for electronic surveillance and monitoring. It
further adds an explicit reference to terrorist activities to the provision
authorizing electronic surveillance without a court order in emergency
situations--18 U.S.C. § 2518(7)--and makes conforming changes in the
corresponding provision (18 U.S.C. § 3125) for using pen registers and trap
and trace devices without a court order in emergency situations."

Now, where the hell does it even infer anything about Joe Beerbelly getting
into a bar fight? They're talking about terrorist organizations and
terrorist activities. Anything beyond that would have to be created in your
mind. If you read the entire document, there is plenty mentioned regarding
the restrictions of definitions, and nothing to infer that the government
can run around willy-nilly chasing after people who disagree with them. I
REALLY wish you folks would READ this stuff for yourself, rather than
quoting this bilge from somebody that read it and translated it to some
perversion of what it really is.

She drools on...
"Gagging American Citizens and Cutting Off Their Rights to Sue

If you don't like the government's policies, including these, Patriot II
says: Too bad. Don't try to make a federal case out of it - we'll bar you at
the courthouse door."

What garbage. When referring to a subpoena, it states:

"This provision would extend the existing administrative-subpoena
authorities into investigations involving domestic or international
terrorism. It also would prohibit a subpoena recipient from disclosing to
any other person (except to a lawyer in order to obtain legal advice) the
fact that he has received a subpoena. This proposal would not give the
Justice Department a unilateral, unreviewable authority to compel production
of documents relevant to a terrorism investigation. If recipients refuse to
comply with subpoenas, the Justice Department would have to ask a court to
enforce them. And subpoena recipients would retain the ability, as they do
in other contexts, to ask a court to quash the subpoena. See, e.g., In re
Administrative Subpoena, John Doe, D.P.M., 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001)."

Did you read that? Did you understand it? It goes on to talk about refusing
to disclose information pertinent to a terrorist investigation, and the
penalties for obstructing such an investigation.

"Section 206: Grand Jury Information in Terrorism Cases."
This section amends Rule 6(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure to make witnesses and persons to whom subpoenas are directed
subject to grand jury secrecy rules in cases where serious adverse
consequences may otherwise result, including danger to the national security
or to the life or physical safety of an individual, flight from prosecution,
destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of a potential
witness, or other serious jeopardy to an investigation. The provision would
permit witnesses and recipients of grand jury subpoenas to consult with
counsel regarding the subpoena and any testimony, but would impose the same
secrecy obligations on counsel.

(Nothing daunting there.)

As for what it says about litigation,

"This provision provides protection against civil liability for businesses
and their personnel who voluntarily provide information to federal law
enforcement agencies to assist in the investigation and prevention of
terrorist activities. The purpose of the provision is to encourage voluntary
cooperation and assistance in counterterrorism efforts by private entities
and individuals."

So? It's talking about people who voluntarily provide information and their
protection.

Sec. 405. Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism
Defendants in federal cases who are accused of certain crimes are
presumptively denied pretrial release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Specifically,
for these crimes, there is a rebuttable presumption that "no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
person as required and the safety of the community." The list of crimes
currently includes drug offenses carrying maximum prison terms of 10 years
or more, but it does not include most terrorism offenses. Thus, persons
accused of many drug offenses are presumptively to be detained before trial,
but no comparable presumption exists for persons accused of most terrorist
crimes.

This section would amend 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) to presumptively deny release
to persons charged with crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), which
contains a standard list of offenses that are likely to be committed by
terrorists. This presumption is warranted because of the unparalleled
magnitude of the danger to the United States and its people posed by acts of
terrorism, and because terrorism is typically engaged in by groups -- many
with international connections -- that are often in a position to help their
members flee or go into hiding.

In addition to adding terrorism offenses to those creating a presumption in
favor of detention, this section makes conforming changes in a provision
describing offenses for which pretrial detention may be considered (§
3142(f)(1)) and in a provision identifying factors to be considered by the
judicial officer in determining whether the defendant's appearance and
public safety can reasonably be assured through release conditions (§
3142(g)(1)).

(Nothing daunting there...)

It goes on to talk about terrorist "hoaxes". There is absolutely NOTHING to
support her last statement. She just says it, so it must be so. Right.

More of her dribble...

"What if you're lucky enough discover that you've been illegally spied on,
in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights? Too bad. Patriot II would
provide immunity from liability to law enforcement engaging in spying
operations against the American people. The proposed act provides a defense
for federal agents who engage unauthorized searches and surveillances
relating to foreign intelligence when they are acting "pursuant to a lawful
authorization from the President or the Attorney General."

"...when agents are acting pursuant to a FISA Court order, but also when
they are acting pursuant to a lawful authorization from the President or the
Attorney General."

Again, there's nothing in there to support her allegations. Where does she
get the basis for her first statement? not from Patriot II. She makes-up her
own paranoid hypothesis that has no basis in fact, and uses the last
statement, from Patriot II, to try to support her paranoia. It doesn't say
anything about "nobody" bearing responsibility for the actions - in other
words, what it DOES say is that agents acting under orders cannot be
prosecuted, or used a s "fall guys" if something illegal DOES occur. But
nowhere does it state or suggest that such a hypothetical illegal search
would go unpunished.

More of her babbling...
"What if a disgruntled business competitor chooses to falsely claim to the
government that you're a "suspected terrorist"? Again, too bad. Don't
consider suing the competitor, no matter what consequences ensure Patriot II
eliminates civil liability for businesses and employees that report
"suspected terrorists" to the federal government, no matter how malicious or
unfounded the tip may be."

Bull. I can't believe someone with her credentials would write such
nonsense. There is not one place in the entire act that says that
corporations who would commit such a crime as she describes would go
unpunished, or that they are protected, and it would get shrugged-off with
an "oh, well..."

Again, what it states is this:

"Section 313: Disclosure of Information.
This provision provides protection against civil liability for businesses
and their personnel who voluntarily provide information to federal law
enforcement agencies to assist in the investigation and prevention of
terrorist activities. The purpose of the provision is to encourage voluntary
cooperation and assistance in counterterrorism efforts by private entities
and individuals."

She draws her own paranoid conclusions from this. It doesn't take a law
school graduate to understand what this really means, and, again - there's
nothing stating that false reports would be ignored, with no liability to
the perpetrators of such a crime - there are already laws on the books
regarding such things, and nothing in this act negates such laws. It's no
different than accusing your neighbor of a crime and having it come out
after an investigation that you made it up. No different than a business
accusing another business of illegal business practices and having the
investigation show you only wanted to discredit the competition. She's
adding her own translation to what she reads.

Her next nonsense:

"Like TIA, Operation TIPS - which would have enlisted government employees
to spy on citizens - elicited public outcry. But this is TIPS all over
again. If they like, your package courier or cable guy can report you to the
feds with impunity."

More nonsense. Again, she draws her own paranoid conclusions by reading
things into the act that just aren't there.
Incidentally, for those that insist on attacking John Ashcroft and referring
to him in the most derogatory tones, it should be noted that he made the
following comment:

Titled "Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet," the release by Ashcroft
sounds like it was written by the ACLU:

"The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection
from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years
of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The
state's interest in crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill
of Rights."

Her next statement:

"Broadly Criminalizing Encryption of Evidence"
"Meanwhile, in your search for a shred of privacy that might remain to you,
don't even think about trying to protect your email. Under Patriot II, the
government may go after you for that, too."

This was already discussed earlier. It has nothing to do with everyone's
email being compromised. It specifically states in what cases such things
can be done. Period. There is no dangling part that gives the government
unlimited access to personal email for whatever reason they want. More
unfounded scare tactics.

Next...
"Specifically, Patriot II, as currently drafted, would makes it a new,
separate crime to use encryption in the commission of another crime. To be
convicted, the defendant must be shown to have "knowingly and willfully
use[d] encryption technology to conceal any incriminating communication"
relating to a federal felony he is committing, or attempting to commit."

Again - exactly how does this threaten your private email, unless you are
involved in the proscribed activities?

This is getting tiring, and is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who
has an IQ higher than that of a house plant.

"The "federal crime" limitation may seem significant, until you realize that
"domestic terrorism" - which can be based on a state law violation - is a
federal crime. Remember, too, how loosely "domestic terrorism" is defined,
in a way that could encompass a protester's resisting arrest, and if you do,
you may reasonably fear using encryption even if you are not engaged in any
criminal activity at all."

Once again, she gets creative.There is not one mention, in the entire act,
or even an inference, that domestic terrorism can be based on a state law
violation - not ONE WORD. She just made this up off the top of her head. How
pathetic. The only way she can support her arguments is to get creative and
try to instill her own personal paranoia into everybody she can. There is
nothing that would support her assertion that "you may reasonably fear using
encryption even if you are not engaged in any criminal activity at all".
Read the damned thing. READ IT. "Domestic Terrorism" is NOT loosely defined.
The act defines what constitutes domestic terrorism quite well.

Next...
"What if your encrypted email about protest planning is deemed
"incriminating evidence" of your plan to resist arrest at the protest? You
could be looking at five to ten."

What gives her the idea that such a thing would happen? Her paranoia borders
on insanity. What people should really be frightened of is those that would
use her article as the basis for their fears or arguments.

Next...
"The penalty for this offense alone would be up to ten years in prison. In
addition, a Justice Department analysis included with the proposal suggests
that the illegal encrypting ought to carry a mandatory minimum term of five
years in prison."

From the act:
"This proposal would amend federal law to provide that any person who,
during the commission of or the attempt to commit a federal felony,
knowingly and willfully uses encryption technology to conceal any
incriminating communication or information relating to that felony, be
imprisoned for an additional period of not fewer than 5 years. These
additional penalties are warranted to deter the use of encryption technology
to conceal criminal activity."

Now, why does she find this so frightening? It's talking about using
encryption to conceal criminal activity involving a felony - it doesn't say
a word about Jim Bob sending an encrypted email to Billy Joe about where
they're going to meet to go fishing. It doesn't even talk about STATE laws.
It says FELONY, and CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Anything else read into that is just
that - the use of an over-active imagination, with no basis in reality.

Next...
"Notably, the federal felony relating to the "incriminating communication"
need not be an act of terrorism. It could be any federal crime, from the
most major to the most minor, the most violent to the most excruciatingly
technical. And that's frightening."

Does she really believe any of this? No, it need not be an act of
terrorism - it says FELONY. A felony is a felony. What does she think is a
"minor" felony that could harm her rights if she were caught?

Peace-officers.com defines a felony as a "Serious crime, ie, rape, that is
punished more severely than a misdemeanor"

Black's Law Dictionary: "A crime of a graver or more serious nature than
those designated as misdemeanors; e.g. aggravated assault (felony) as
contrasted with simple assault (misdemeanor). Under many state statutes, any
offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

Wordreference.com says: "a serious crime, such as murder or arson."

Every reference source refers to a felony in such manner - a serious crime.
The act says nothing of minor crimes or misdemeanors. So getting a ticket
for running that red light at 3 in the morning doesn't qualify as a reason
to have your encrypted email decrypted.

next...
"For instance, if a peer-to-peer website's users swap files, thus violating
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and encrypt the files they are
swapping, they may automatically face five years in prison, and could serve
ten, for the encryption alone."

So? If you know an activity is criminal, why do you engage in it, then want
to be protected from liability? If you willfully engage in a criminal
activity, you have to be prepared to pay the price if you get caught. Why
does that disturb her? Or anybody ELSE, for that matter? How does this
encroach on your rights? Remember - don't do the crime if you can't do the
time.

next...
"What is most shocking about the new encryption crime is that it is not
limited to terrorism. This is the first attempt to regulate encryption
domestically at all."

Sure - it refers to FELONIES. It doesn't refer to you sending an encrypted
email to your sister telling her about how you walked your dog without a
license tag on him.

next...
"Current grand jury secrecy rules apply only to jurors, prosecutors and
courtroom staff. Patriot II would expand them to apply to witnesses too -
meaning that ordinary citizens could not discuss their testimony with anyone
but their attorney. In theory, they'd have to keep mum even with spouses or
children, or face serious consequences."

What's wrong with that? They're talking about matters of national security.
They should have enacted that long ago. If you think about it, it protects
you and your family as well.

Here's a whopper:
"What if they've been improperly subpoenaed in the first place? Under
Patriot II, too bad: Neither individuals nor organizations may move to try
to quash a federal grand jury subpoena."

Bull. Outright bull.

Section 128: Administrative Subpoenas in Terrorism Investigations.

"This provision would extend the existing administrative-subpoena
authorities into investigations involving domestic or international
terrorism. It also would prohibit a subpoena recipient from disclosing to
any other person (except to a lawyer in order to obtain legal advice) the
fact that he has received a subpoena. This proposal would not give the
Justice Department a unilateral, unreviewable authority to compel production
of documents relevant to a terrorism investigation. If recipients refuse to
comply with subpoenas, the Justice Department would have to ask a court to
enforce them. And subpoena recipients would retain the ability, as they do
in other contexts, to ask a court to quash the subpoena. See, e.g., In re
Administrative Subpoena, John Doe, D.P.M., 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001)."

Did you read that? The last sentence alone proves that her assertion is
absolute bull.

In her summation, she states:
"In sum, Patriot II puts in jeopardy the First Amendment right to speak
freely, statutory and common law rights to privacy, the right to go to court
to challenge government illegality, and the Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. But that's not all. It also puts in
jeopardy perhaps the most basic right of all: The right to walk the streets
in safety without being "disappeared" by the government. Chileans have not
always enjoyed this right. Americans, until now, always have."

By reading the actual text of the act, any idiot can see that her assertions
hold absolutely no weight. The statement about being "disappeared" is beyond
paranoid. This article has to be one of the most irresponsible pieces of
writing I've seen outside of a conspiracy nut website. All anybody has to do
is READ the damned thing, and you can plainly see that the only way she can
try to support her delusions is to add text, contort, suppose, or out-right
lie and mis-state.

She doesn't stop there:
"Suppose you, as a citizen, attended a legal protest for which one of the
hosts, unbeknownst to you, is an organization the government has listed as
terrorist. Under Patriot II, you may be deported and deemed no longer an
American citizen."

Look - if you're involved in a legal protest, what are you so afraid of? The
supposition she makes here is ridiculous - unless you have direct knowledge
and ties to said terrorist organization. The statements in the act
referring to deportation have nothing to do with protesters, and has strict
guidelines regarding deportation.

The part she refers to is this:
"This provision would amend 8 U.S.C. § 1481 to make clear that, just as an
American can relinquish his citizenship by serving in a hostile foreign
army, so can he relinquish his citizenship by serving in a hostile terrorist
organization. Specifically, an American could be expatriated if, with the
intent to relinquish nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides
material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a
"terrorist organization," if that group is engaged in hostilities against
the United States."

What problem do you see in that? Read the last part: "IF that group is
engaged in hostilities against the United States". I don't know about YOU,
but if someone was involved with a terrorist organization that was engaged
in hostilities with the United States, I wouldn't WANT them to stay here. Or
do you think that bin-Laden's boys should be allowed to have free reign? Or
perhaps you see something wrong with going after those that funded him? Or
any organization like that? Again, you won't be deported for going to a
peaceful gathering to protest the loss of habitat for the
High-Toned-Farting-Owl. Unless, of course, you went there to distribute
anthrax to terrorist cells...

I'm not going to go over the rest of this. It's ridiculous. Suffice it to
say, this is the type of article that gives rise to the nonsense that others
repeat, having no idea what they're talking about, using this as their
FACTS.

Do yourself a favor. before you go on spouting about what you think the
"truth" is regarding Patriot II, the UN resolutions, or anything else, take
the time to READ before you go off the deep end - I mean, read those things
you're talking about, and NOT the translations and opinions of others. If
you have an opinion on what you read, and can back up what you believe,
fine. If not, don't go off half-cocked repeating dribble like this.

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:12:54 PM4/23/03

to

No. I clearly meant that vague and technical language can
obscure loopholes that are dangerous. It's not the
language, but the actual intent which matters. I think you
knew that.

The facts prove the intent is to detain anybody they feel
they need to, without regard to existing constitutional
protections. That's why one must read carefully.

For example, you foolishly fall for the "alien" idea, that
anonymous detentions can only occur to aliens.
Setting aside for the moment the highly questionable
argument that it's OK to detain aliens on mere suspicion,
you forget that this Act actually permits the US government
to strip the citizenship from someone born here, who is
currently a citizen. At that point, they become aliens and
a much looser standard applies. This is their intent - to
strip citizenship from those whom they can't legally abuse
as citizens.

>
> > Also, it's a fact that
> > detainees are being held indefinitely without "initiation of
> > criminal charges", today, in Guantanamo Bay.
>
> Yes, that is true. Of course, GITMO is not US soil, so I am curious as
> to your point.

Read the damn document. The various provisions tie together
in complex ways. All sorts of definitions are being
altered. For example, it's now possible to call an
individual a "foreign power", including a US Citizen.
If I were to pass patent information to a Japanese company,
for example, under Section 102 I could be labelled a foreign
power, even though no terrorist danger was thereby created,
and that triggers a whole arsenal of extreme enforcement
powers totally disproportionate to an admittedly criminal
act.

Read it. Don't demand to be spoon fed. I can't give enough
context in this forum to discuss the bill, unless we're both
in a room together with paper copies and have both read it
in the entirety. It's not something you can take section by
section, without reference to other sections and
(re)definitions.

If you really want to read it in its entirety and come back
and have a debate, I may be willing.

>
> > So the
> > "criminal charges" that start the disclosure process need
> > never occur.
> >
> > We know this is the intent given the phrase from #1 above,
> > and real-life examples in the G.Bay camps.
> >
> > Thus, this provision is tantamount to allowing any person to
> > be rounded up and disappeared indefinitely,
>
> I see that you have trouble reading. Note that the statute refers to
> aliens. Therefore, it does not apply to any person. You sure spent a lot
> of time copying and pasting just to end up being wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. You can be designated an alien under the
Act.

>
> > without charges
> > (and thus, without the ability to defend oneself against
> > said charges.) Jail by suspicion. But it's EVEN WORSE THAN
> > THIS. The detainee need not even have to be suspected of
> > terrorism. Merely an "individual detained in investigations
> > of terrorism". They could be witnesses, or less, and be
> > "detained in investigations."
>
> Gee, wow. That's really dangerous. Good thing we have nothing like that
> now called "state's evidence".

You can't detain someone indefinitely without telling them
why, until now.

>
> > QED. Ashcroft is human totalitarian shit. That's a
> > figurative fact.
>
> Um, could you point to the part of the above text that Ashcroft penned? TIA!

Read the excellent essay I linked you to.

>
> > -- Ross
>
> - Kevin

Ross Archer

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:13:39 PM4/23/03

to

No. I clearly meant that vague and technical language can

obscure loopholes that are dangerous. It's not the
language, but the actual intent which matters. I think you
knew that.
>

The facts prove the intent is to detain anybody they feel

they need to, without regard to existing constitutional
protections. That's why one must read carefully.

For example, you foolishly fall for the "alien" idea, that
anonymous detentions can only occur to aliens.
Setting aside for the moment the highly questionable
argument that it's OK to detain aliens on mere suspicion,
you forget that this Act actually permits the US government
to strip the citizenship from someone born here, who is
currently a citizen. At that point, they become aliens and
a much looser standard applies. This is their intent - to
strip citizenship from those whom they can't legally abuse
as citizens.

>

> > Also, it's a fact that
> > detainees are being held indefinitely without "initiation of
> > criminal charges", today, in Guantanamo Bay.
>
> Yes, that is true. Of course, GITMO is not US soil, so I am curious as
> to your point.

Read the damn document. The various provisions tie together

in complex ways. All sorts of definitions are being
altered. For example, it's now possible to call an
individual a "foreign power", including a US Citizen.
If I were to pass patent information to a Japanese company,
for example, under Section 102 I could be labelled a foreign
power, even though no terrorist danger was thereby created,
and that triggers a whole arsenal of extreme enforcement
powers totally disproportionate to an admittedly criminal
act.

Read it. Don't demand to be spoon fed. I can't give enough
context in this forum to discuss the bill, unless we're both
in a room together with paper copies and have both read it
in the entirety. It's not something you can take section by
section, without reference to other sections and
(re)definitions.

If you really want to read it in its entirety and come back
and have a debate, I may be willing.

>

> > So the
> > "criminal charges" that start the disclosure process need
> > never occur.
> >
> > We know this is the intent given the phrase from #1 above,
> > and real-life examples in the G.Bay camps.
> >
> > Thus, this provision is tantamount to allowing any person to
> > be rounded up and disappeared indefinitely,
>
> I see that you have trouble reading. Note that the statute refers to
> aliens. Therefore, it does not apply to any person. You sure spent a lot
> of time copying and pasting just to end up being wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. You can be designated an alien under the
Act.

>

> > without charges
> > (and thus, without the ability to defend oneself against
> > said charges.) Jail by suspicion. But it's EVEN WORSE THAN
> > THIS. The detainee need not even have to be suspected of
> > terrorism. Merely an "individual detained in investigations
> > of terrorism". They could be witnesses, or less, and be
> > "detained in investigations."
>
> Gee, wow. That's really dangerous. Good thing we have nothing like that
> now called "state's evidence".

You can't detain someone indefinitely without telling them
why, until now.

>

> > QED. Ashcroft is human totalitarian shit. That's a
> > figurative fact.
>
> Um, could you point to the part of the above text that Ashcroft penned? TIA!

Read the excellent essay I linked you to.

>
> > -- Ross
>
> - Kevin

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:38:35 PM4/23/03

to

Brenda Ann wrote:

> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b87g5n$6q02r$9...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Yes, that is true. Of course, GITMO is not US soil, so I am curious as
>>to your point.
>
>
> Sorry, but GITMO IS U.S. soil.

Sorry, but you are wrong. GITMO is Cuban soil leased to the US. Read the
Treaty of 1934 if you are still confused on this point.

> Just as any other U.S. military base or
> embassy, regardless of it's physical location.

I am always amazed by how many people believe the embassy myth.
Embassies are the soil of the host nation, not the embassy's nation.
Same for military bases.

> What I'm still trying to
> figure out after all these years is why we still HAVE a base on Cuba. So far
> as I know, it's the only base we have in a Marxist country.

Write a letter to the president and tell him why you think we should
abandon our position in Cuba.

- Kevin

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:40:39 PM4/23/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Equally good at being human beings? Yes.

> Hmm. :)

You haven't answered my question. Explain how she is better than me.

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:42:23 PM4/23/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

I never said that I haven't. However, that is irrelevant to my questions
to you.

> It does wild things like
> make it possible to strip citizenship from US-born people
> (thus removing the higher constitutional protections they
> enjoy.)

Please cite the section that does this.

> It's so full of pen registers and surveillance enhancements,
> many of which (if you read carefully) can apply to anybody,
> so long as somebody says it's relevant to a terrorism
> investigation. It establishes a list of terrorist
> suspects. You have no way to find out if you're on the
> list, or any way to get your name removed if there's been an
> error.
>
> The list is so long that I refer you to the excellent and
> thorough analysis by the "goofy chick" you so
> idiotically dismissed. :)
>
> That's all I have time for. You can educate yourself, or
> continue to wallow in ignorance and demand I spoon-feed
> you. That's your choice. I'm through casting pearls.

I see. You decline to support your claims with facts. Gee, I've never
seen anyone on the left do THAT before.

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:44:09 PM4/23/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Yes, you are. "Any alien" != "any person"

> You can be designated an alien under the
> Act.

Please cite how.

>
>> > without charges
>>
>>>(and thus, without the ability to defend oneself against
>>>said charges.) Jail by suspicion. But it's EVEN WORSE THAN
>>>THIS. The detainee need not even have to be suspected of
>>>terrorism. Merely an "individual detained in investigations
>>>of terrorism". They could be witnesses, or less, and be
>>>"detained in investigations."
>>
>>Gee, wow. That's really dangerous. Good thing we have nothing like that
>>now called "state's evidence".
>
>
> You can't detain someone indefinitely without telling them
> why, until now.

Now you have shifted your ground.

>>>QED. Ashcroft is human totalitarian shit. That's a
>>>figurative fact.
>>
>>Um, could you point to the part of the above text that Ashcroft penned? TIA!
>
>
> Read the excellent essay I linked you to.

I am asking you, not the essay. What part did Ashcroft write?

- Kevin

Kevin Gowen

unread,

Apr 23, 2003, 10:49:54 PM4/23/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Of course you did. You juse chose not to write that.

> It's not the
> language, but the actual intent which matters. I think you
> knew that.

Then you are backpedaling on your statement that "The technical
language...make[s] this Act very dangerous"?

That's the intent of the FOIA? Wow.

> For example, you foolishly fall for the "alien" idea, that
> anonymous detentions can only occur to aliens.
> Setting aside for the moment the highly questionable
> argument that it's OK to detain aliens on mere suspicion,
> you forget that this Act actually permits the US government
> to strip the citizenship from someone born here, who is
> currently a citizen. At that point, they become aliens and
> a much looser standard applies. This is their intent - to
> strip citizenship from those whom they can't legally abuse
> as citizens.

Please point to the section of the act that does this.

>
>> > Also, it's a fact that
>>
>>>detainees are being held indefinitely without "initiation of
>>>criminal charges", today, in Guantanamo Bay.
>>
>>Yes, that is true. Of course, GITMO is not US soil, so I am curious as
>>to your point.
>
>
> Read the damn document.

I never said that I haven't.

> The various provisions tie together
> in complex ways.

That explains why you are having trouble understanding.

> All sorts of definitions are being
> altered. For example, it's now possible to call an
> individual a "foreign power", including a US Citizen.

Cite the section.

> If I were to pass patent information to a Japanese company,
> for example, under Section 102 I could be labelled a foreign
> power, even though no terrorist danger was thereby created,
> and that triggers a whole arsenal of extreme enforcement
> powers totally disproportionate to an admittedly criminal
> act.

Cite the section.

> Read it.

Who says I haven't?

> Don't demand to be spoon fed.

I see. Asking you to support your claims with facts is "demanding to be
spoon fed [sic]" How quaint.

> I can't give enough
> context in this forum to discuss the bill, unless we're both
> in a room together with paper copies and have both read it
> in the entirety. It's not something you can take section by
> section, without reference to other sections and
> (re)definitions.

*yawn*

> If you really want to read it in its entirety and come back
> and have a debate, I may be willing.

I never said that I haven't read it.

>>>So the
>>>"criminal charges" that start the disclosure process need
>>>never occur.
>>>
>>>We know this is the intent given the phrase from #1 above,
>>>and real-life examples in the G.Bay camps.
>>>
>>>Thus, this provision is tantamount to allowing any person to
>>>be rounded up and disappeared indefinitely,
>>
>>I see that you have trouble reading. Note that the statute refers to
>>aliens. Therefore, it does not apply to any person. You sure spent a lot
>>of time copying and pasting just to end up being wrong.
>
>
> No, I'm not wrong. You can be designated an alien under the
> Act.

Cite the section.

>> > without charges
>>
>>>(and thus, without the ability to defend oneself against
>>>said charges.) Jail by suspicion. But it's EVEN WORSE THAN
>>>THIS. The detainee need not even have to be suspected of
>>>terrorism. Merely an "individual detained in investigations
>>>of terrorism". They could be witnesses, or less, and be
>>>"detained in investigations."
>>
>>Gee, wow. That's really dangerous. Good thing we have nothing like that
>>now called "state's evidence".
>
>
> You can't detain someone indefinitely without telling them
> why, until now.

I see that you have shifted your ground.

>>>QED. Ashcroft is human totalitarian shit. That's a
>>>figurative fact.
>>
>>Um, could you point to the part of the above text that Ashcroft penned? TIA!
>
>
> Read the excellent essay I linked you to.

I am not asking the article. I am asking you.

BTW, why do you reply to every post twice?

>
>
>>>-- Ross
>>
>>- Kevin

N8KDV

unread,

Apr 24, 2003, 6:45:23 AM4/24/03

to

Ross Archer wrote:

Way better? Way smarter? Come on now, at least some of us can discern bulls**t
when we read it. I'd say that that is definetly way better and smarter than being
paranoid.

"Q"

unread,

Apr 24, 2003, 3:23:39 PM4/24/03

to

Your days are numbered, moron. My ISP is well aware of your forged headers
and morphing ways.

""Q"" <Q...@Q.everywhere> wrote in message
news:406a570d....@news.Q.everywhere...
> <snip bullshit>
>
> Stop using my nym to post your war mongering views.

RHF

unread,

Apr 24, 2003, 7:19:03 PM4/24/03

to

Q,

After paging through the FindLaw WebSite the only thing missing is the
American Lawyers Guild Seal of Approval.

GoTo=> http://www.findlaw.com/

~ RHF
.
.
= = = "\"Q\"" <Q...@Q.invalid.com> wrote in message
= = = news:<aFHpa.151721$0X.32...@twister.columbus.rr.com>...