Two-Thirds of Americans in "Constitution-Free" Zones

Let's hope this post becomes a blockbuster, and wakes up America.

The government is turning vast swaths of our country into a "Constitution-Free Zone" in which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is allowed to exercise extraordinary authority that would not normally be permitted under the Constitution. The government says that "the border" — where there is a longstanding view that the Constitution does not fully apply — actually stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s "external boundary." And increasingly, we are seeing DHS vigorously utilize that authority.

Now what exactly is in that "external boundary"? Maybe you are, since

nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population live within this "Constitution-Free Zone." That’s 197.4 million people.

Even inland

We calculated this using the most recent, 2007 numbers from the U.S. Census, and released a map showing the cities and states that are enveloped by this zone. It includes some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country: New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon. States that are completely within this Constitution-Free Zone include Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. When you say "border," they think "all of New England."

CBP has been setting up checkpoints far inland— on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminalsin Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. People are also reporting that even after they provide passports or state driver’s licenses, CBP continues to interrogate them and try to pressure them into permitting a search.

For example,

Craig Johnson, a music professor at a San Diego college, told how he participated in a peaceful demonstration near the border to protest against the destruction of a state park so that offense could be constructed along the U.S. border. CBP agents monitored the protest and collected the license plate information of those who participated. Since this protest, Mr. Johnson has twice crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and, each time, he has been pulled aside for additional screening. He was taken to another room, handcuffed and questioned. On his first crossing, he was also partially stripped and subjected to a body cavity search. A CBP agent also told Mr. Johnson that he was on an "armed and dangerous" list. Before the protest, Mr. Johnson crossed the U.S.-Mexico border numerous times without incident. It is difficult to believe that his subsequent harassment at the border is unrelated to his protest activity. If it is related, that would constitute a significant abuse.

The part of the Constitution most significantly violated here would be the Fourth Amendment against unwarranted searches and seizures. Do you really think the "immigration problem" will be solved by dissolving the Constitution in selected areas? Is the freedom of Americans worth ditching in order to supposedly police our country from people who mostly are migrant workers that our economy actually benefits from? Are we so bankrupt of ideas that living in fear is preferable to making laws that work practically to solve our problems? Well, it's hard to have ideas when you're having a nervous breakdown, as Lou Dobbs would have prefer.

Especially now in the hyped-up climate where Fear of Terrorism is supposed to penetrate every cell of our flag-wrapped bodies, do we really want Fear to take precedence over ... liberty and freedom??? Fear, pray tell, of what? Fear of ... oh, yeah, fear of losing our liberty and freedom.

What sense does that make???

Amy Goodman, 2 DN Producers Arrested at RNC! Plus More Police State Tactics

It may have been empty and quiet inside the Republican National Convention, toned down for Hurricane Gustav's Gulf Coast debut, but outside was another story. There, Amy Goodman and two Democracy Now! producers were arrested. According to this report,

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time.

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar. These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman's office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).

Whatever happened to freedom of speech, to freedom of the press??? What does this say about the political process, or about the RNC??? Is it inciting a riot to simply cover the story of lawful protests?? These same protests were safely aired by C-Span, but I guess the RNC has use for C-Span and they don't want to get rid of them just yet. What do they have against Democracy Now!? Well, probably quite a lot.

For starters, they couldn't have been too happy with this little bombshell, exposing the RNC's preparatory raids against protest groups and people "suspected" of possibly planning protests. What democracy is that, pray tell?? According to Amy Goodman's report Sunday, Aug. 31, before she herself was arrested:

As we interviewed Jon Stewart at the Minneapolis airport next to baggage claim, we got a text message that Democracy Now! videographer, filmmaker Elizabeth Press, who had arrived before us, had been arrested, or she had been detained, or she was in a house with I-Witness Video, and somehow the group was surrounded by police. That was the last details we had. We had the address of the place; they were texted to us. And we raced off.

Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than a half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of preemptive raids before the Republican convention. The coordinated searches were led by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher but conducted in coordination with federal agencies.

Five Minnesotan activists are still detained on probable cause holds, which means they can be held for thirty-six hours without charge, excluding weekends and public holidays. According to this timeline, they won’t be released before Wednesday. The sheriff called them "criminal anarchists who are intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention.”

The raids and detentions have targeted activists planning to protest the Republican National Convention, as well as journalists and videographers documenting police actions at protests. Groups directly affected by the raids include Food Not Bombs, the RNC Welcoming Committee, I-Witness Video and Communities United Against Police Brutality.

Consider what happened to Michelle Gross of Communities United Against Police Brutality, who was at the "activist convergence space" when it was raided on Sunday. As she put it:

MICHELLE GROSS: I was sitting there waiting for a meeting to happen with other legal people. We were working with a kind of a collective of legal people, and we were waiting to have a meeting. And I was literally just sitting there drinking some water and relaxing, when, you know, these Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department people came blazing in, screaming “Get on the floor! Get on the floor!” and waving guns at everybody in their faces.

And they basically—at the time, I quickly thought and opened up my video camera and hit my record button and started recording the scene. Then, because they were, you know, waving guns in my face, of course, I had to hit the floor, but I kept my camera recording the whole time.

After being held for 45 minutes and released, she found her home and car had been broken into - I repeat, broken into - and "all her documents thoroughly searched." Is this unlawful search and seizure? Is this not what the Constitution is supposed to guard against? Are these not police state tactics? Is it not ironic that she is being unlawfully searched and attacked by police because of her open stance against police brutality? Who is asking why? Where is the outrage??

But on Saturday others were also detained: DN!'s Elizabeth Press and I-Witness Video founder Eileen Clancy, whom Amy Goodman found handcuffed and detained in the backyard of their home.

EILEEN CLANCY: They’ve been detaining people for days around here. And they photographed us. They look through our materials. They copy our materials and don’t return them to you. And then you’re merely detained, so you don’t have the same situation where you have police officers swearing out affidavits, which we could prove was false. This seems to be a new technique.

Amy Goodman also mentioned that people are not taking this abuse without self-defense:

The National Lawyers Guild and Communities United Against Police Brutality filed an emergency motion Sunday asking Judge Mark Wernick to grant "injunctive relief to prevent police from seizing video equipment and cellular phones used to document their conduct.” The groups sought a temporary restraining order on police to stop them from illegally detaining journalists and confiscating equipment.

According to Bruce Nestor from the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, who was interviewed by Goodman,

The raids were carried out by Sheriff Bob Fletcher, who had been arguing for months that there needed to be a stronger law enforcement response, and he was being told that wasn’t necessary. And so, he sent his officers in, after doing intelligence gathering and infiltrating these groups.

And then, really what he did is he took common household items that you would find in any home in Minnesota—a hatchet, rope, glass bottles and rags—attached the label “anarchist” to the people who are living in the homes, and then raise this public fear that the anarchists were threatening violence, public disorder. But really, it’s taking a common household item, something you’d find anywhere, calling it an edged weapon and then attacking people for their political beliefs, that then is used to generate this public fear and keep activists detained, as you said, through Wednesday at noon.

If there was a public outcry which is probably unlikely, knowing the American sheep on their way to the slaughter, I suppose the RNC people will say it was all the idea of one rogue police chief, and they had nothing to do with it. So note that there are Federal agents involved.

As Bruce Nestor added,

They did the same thing in the house raids in south Minneapolis. They broke down doors, even though these were knock warrants, meaning they were supposed to knock and announce themselves. I was personally present and saw officers with riot gear and assault rifles, pump action shotguns. The neighbor of one of the houses had a gun pointed in her face when she walked out on her back porch to see what was going on. There were children in all of these houses, and children were held at gunpoint. Everyone was forced to the floor and handcuffed and then detained for about an hour, while they were processed out, and then individuals were released.

It was really an overwhelming show of force, again, designed to heighten public fear to do two things: to make people fearful of the protests, but also to discourage people from protesting. I think it’s somehow designed to say, you know, don’t take to the streets, because this could happen to you, or you could get caught up in this, and therefore, don’t get involved. And that’s why they have that level of force involved.

A former FBI agent, when asked by Goodman about these tactics of sometimes detaining people without arrest, etc, stated:

What it actually is supposed to be is in a major event, such as the RNC, the FBI is really to take the lead on the counterintelligence aspect, which, of course, if there was a true threat—let’s say there was a domestic terrorism group, which is—this is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about at the very most nonviolent civil disobedience. So the confusion with true intelligence for a terrorist threat is quite enormous.

And so, when you start this word “preemptive,” and now, unfortunately, it seems to have migrated to domestic law enforcement.

People put this—they try to say, well, security, we must sacrifice civil liberties. They think of it as a tradeoff. And it is absolutely not true. Our security does depend on good police work. And so, when police do this, and they go against their own community policing model, they actually so distrust, so that if they do want to ask a question of someone next time, let’s say, there is a true threat, somebody may say, “I don’t want to talk to you. I know what happened last week when you handcuffed people incorrectly.” This is just sending a very bad signal to police work.

In other words, security in a police state is very bad, because suspicion takes over from the rule of law, and all safeguards essentially go to hell.

Meanwhile, back as the RNC gets underway, Siun at Firedoglake reports was live in Saint Paul to describe the Heavy Hand of Police:

RUBBER BULLETS FIRED AT 10TH/ST PETER BLACK BLOC. 1 PROTESTER DOWN. national guard also coming to scene reportedly with concussion grenades and smoke.

Legal observers from the Cold Spring Legal collective have been arrested – these are the folks trained to watch for police problems.
Tear gas and water cannons is use as well.

Update at 11:04 pacific -Reports coming in via indymedia twitter:

COPS ARE INDISCRIMINATELY USING TEAR GAS AND PEPPER SPRAY AT 7TH AND MINNESOTA STREETS. HELP NEEDED ASAP: WATER, MEDICS. JOURNALISTS GASSED

Also reports of police horses being used against marchers.

Update at 10:41 (pacific) Lindsay just saw 12 bicycle cops ride past in gas masks - and there are reports that "Justice Department officers directing riot police on 6th St to "get ready" are popping up on the Indy tweets.

Lindsay, Glenn and Jane are out in St. Paul getting the story from the ground as the RNC starts up – and we’ll be bringing you continuing news throughout the day.

A large march to the Excel Center is beginning in about an hour and folks are rallying now – undeterred by the police raids you’ve already seen reported here. As Matt Stoller notes, the RNC is meeting in their very own Green Zone while the pepper spray and arrests have already started in the streets of St. Paul today.

So just who are these people and why are they gathering in the streets to march on the RNC?

Well, there's the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. Pacifist groups. People who actually dare to exercise their Constitution-given rights to protest the failed policies of the Republican party, the same policies that have given us the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, mass surveillance on the American people, torture, Guantanamo prison, prison ships, and that Alcatraz in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia.

People like Amy Goodman, a well-respected and well-known journalist who should certainly pose no threat to the Republican Party or any other party - had they not lost their minds. Goodbye, Constitution? What does this say about the GOP and its policies? If you're thinking of hiring John McCain for President, well... take a look at the GOP store window, their convention. Is this the future you want for America?

Kucinich Defends Constitution with New Articles of Impeachment

Dare we believe? Check this out:

On the House floor this afternoon, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced an article of impeachment against President Bush “for high crimes and misdemeanors” and “deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.”

Yes, it's true!

While the House tabled previous articles of impeachment against Bush offered by Kucinich, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) suggested this morning that the Judiciary Committee may “have some hearings” on Kucinich’s new impeachment resolution.

Transcript:

SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio rise?

KUCINICH: Thank you, madam speaker. Pursuant to clause 2, rule 9, I here by give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows. An article of impeachment of President George W. Bush. Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the final article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

An article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and the people of the United States of America in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article one: Deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article 2, Section 3 of the constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq weapons of mass destruction to fraudulently obtain support for and authorization of the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization then acting in his capacity under Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution as commander-in-chief to commit U.S. troops to combat in Iraq.

Let's hope this true Patriot is successful this time around!

Where are the guts? Where are the brave ones in Congress? Only Dennis Kucinich??

Convicted for Unlawful Free Speech!: 34 Gitmo Protestors

According to this important report from Alternet:

Thirty-four Americans arrested at the Supreme Court on January 11, 2008
were found guilty after a three-day trial which began on Tuesday, May 27th in
D.C. Superior Court. The defendants represented themselves, mounting a spirited
defense of their First Amendment rights to protest the gross injustice of abuse
and indefinite detention of men at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.
Charged with "unlawful free speech," the defendants were part of a larger
group that appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11 -- the day marking
six years of indefinite detention and torture at Guantanamo. "I knelt and prayed
on the steps of the Supreme Court wearing an orange jumpsuit and black hood to
be present for Fnu Fazaldad," said Tim Nolan, a nurse practitioner from
Asheville, NC who provides health care for people with HIV.

Wait a minute! "Unlawful Free Speech"???? Doesn't the US Constitution prohibit passing any law that curtails Americans' right to free speech? Especially when that free speech right is used to express an opinion? Especially an opinion about a government policy? Isn't that a basic right guaranteed to all US citizens??? What does this mean?????

According to one of the convicted protestors:

Defendants and witnesses argued that they did not expect to be arrested at
the Supreme Court, "an internationally known temple to free speech." Ashley
Casale, a student at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, told the court, "I am
19 -- the youngest person in this courtroom--and I come on behalf of all the
prisoners at Guantanamo who were younger than I am now when they were detained.
According to the U.S. Constitution we have a right to petition the government
for a redress of grievances and Guantanamo Bay prison is beyond grievous."

According to Historian Michael S. Foley, a professor at the City University of New York:

if "you told me that the defendants would be arrested for 'unlawful free
speech' just twenty feet from where the Justices decide First Amendment cases,
I'd say you were 'crazy.'"

According to Arthur Laffin, an attorney at Gitmo in his closing statement at the January Guantanamo Trial:

My name is Arthur Laffin and I am representing Mane'I al Otaybi, a Saudi
national who was 25 years old when he was taken into U.S. custody in
Afghanistan. He died at the Guantanamo military prison on June 10, 2006 of a
reported suicide. To date, there has been no independent investigation of his
death or the others who have died at
Guantanamo. We remember these dead prisoners in a special way here in this court today.
The government has asserted that this case is not about Guantanamo. We respectfully and vehemently disagree. In our defense, we have to put forth to this court overwhelming evidence that the U.S. government has engaged in criminal conduct. What is at issue here is: what do citizens do when all three branches of government are in violation of divine law, international law, and its own Constitution? When habeas corpus rights are denied to persons, when persons are held indefinitely
without being charged, when persons are tortured by U.S. personnel in violation
of the Geneva Conventions and the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, we
citizens have a right and a duty to petition the government and to seek redress.
This is what we defendants did on January 11.

According to Usama Abu Kabir, a Guantanamo prisoner, who expressed himself in this poem:

IS IT TRUE
By Usama Abu Kabir (Guantanamo Prisoner)
Is it true that
the Grass grows again after the rain?Is it true that the Flowers will rise up in
the Spring?Is it true that the Birds will migrate home again?Is it true that the
Salmon swim back up the stream?
It is true. This is true. These are all
miracles.But is it true that one day we'll leave Guantanamo Bay?Is it true that
one day we'll go back to our homes?I sail in my dreams, I'm dreaming of
home.
To be with my children, each one part of me;To be with my wife, and the
ones that I love;To be with my parents, my world's tenderest hearts.I dream to
be home, to be free from this cage.
But do you hear me, O Judge, do you hear
me at all?We are innocent, here, we've committed no crime.
Set me free, set
us free, if anywhere still--May justice, compassion remain in this world!

Only those with a conscience will be moved.
Or join with Witness Against Torture and keep working to shut Gitmo and the whole "Homeland Security" torture racket down.

Top 10 Casualties of the Patriot Act

Bridgethought of the Day: Welcome to the Patriot Act - Undermining the very thing it is supposed to protect - "the land of the free and home of the brave"... Welcome to government by fear, Welcome to Fortress America, where no one goes unwatched ...

Is the "War on Terror: Homeland Front" doing its job? Is the Patriot Act keeping out the enemies of freedom, and protecting Americans? Are we safer now than before? Are we protecting our democracy? Or are we undermining our own freedom, democracy, and even our own security? How could the legislation that is supposed to make law enforcement more efficient in catching terrorists now be the very instrument of our own demise as a world power and as a safe and secure place for children to grow up in?

The Patriot Act introduced sweeping changes into how government operates. It grants broad powers to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to conduct secret surveillance of people and share information so obtained, based only on suspicion and not on probable cause, and then to take action against persons in many cases without due process, and against which action there is no legal recourse for the accused. Suspicion of terrorism, even merely by association, however tentative that association, and without consideration of mitigating factors such as a history of law-abiding contribution to society, can lead to revocation of citizenship and criminal prosecution... perhaps re-classification as a non-human "enemy combatant" who is fair game for torture ... until proven innocent - and lots of luck with that...

Here's Top Ten in the Patriot Act carnage:

10. A sense of security.
There is the urgency to undercut the feeling that we are safe in our homes and that law enforcement is capable of maintaining that safety for the majority of law-abiding, income-producing citizens. The constant refrain "Don't be lulled into a false sense of security", is designed to make us feel guilty if we feel relatively safe. The Patriot Act is based on the presumption that we are not secure and need to take drastic measures to become safe.

9. Mutual Trust.
If people in a society are supposed to suspect and fear others in their midst - others who may be hard to identify - lurking perhaps everywhere, then it becomes a cultural and ethical norm to suspect and betray the privacy of others for the so-called "greater good" of Homeland Security.
But without mutual trust, economic activity diminishes, contributions to society slide, a general willingness to help or to forgive others shrivels, and the kinds of compromise required for a large and complex society to function effectively are avoided as a security risk. The greater imperative encouraged by the Patriot Act is wariness and suspicion. Since the actual number of bona fide terrorists is miniscule in comparison to the general population, we will become increasingly wary of and antagonistic to each other. There's this huge infrastructure in place, and not much actual "enemy" material to work with, so who do you think will be the object of all that paid attention? Osama bin Laden? Or ... everyone else ...?

8. Rule of Law.
The Patriot Act presumes that the rule of law, as it stood, was insufficient to ward off terrorism, and that the terrorist attack on 9-11 was the result of security breaches due to excessive freedom, too many checks and balances, and too much due process, not enough secrecy in government, and far too little surveillance with too many protections for individuals from government excess. The Patriot Act then "corrected" these "weaknesses" in order to secure the American state from outside attack, supposedly.
Since the rule of law was considered a weakness, this creates the general consensus that the Rule of Law in itself is insufficient or inefficient to deal with crime or crisis. It's not, as portrayed to the public, a case of making laws "more strict." In fact, it's a case of making the laws more lax on government, favoring the accuser over the accused, hence creating an imbalance in the scales of justice that leans toward mob rule and revenge, where "strict" and "strong" means "vicious" and the "strongest" laws are those that hold human life in the greatest possible disregard - reinstating torture as an "acceptable" technique and creating a right-less subhuman class of persons called "enemy combatants" who have neither country nor family nor rights nor due process nor recognition of their belonging to the same species as American government agents.

7. The Moral High Ground.
Goodbye America the Beautiful, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Hello, expediency. Hello, Fortress America, Land of the Watched and Home of the Suspicious.
Abu Ghraib was not an isolated "rogue" incident. It is the logical outcome of a policy, exemplified by the Patriot Act and the policies in place at Guantanamo, which demonizes enemies to where degradation and torture are all part of accepted behavior. Remember, it's for the "greater good" of Homeland Security.
The only argument one dares to raise against torture is a self-serving, expedient one: were we to allow torture of others, then others might conceivably be allowed to torture us. But the higher ground argument that such actions are by definition unconscionable no longer rules. Who wants to be accused of weakness in a culture of power?
As a result, the world looks down at us as abusive, oppressive, inconsiderate boors with their own self-interest and power-grabs ONLY in mind. And we wonder why they don't love us!

6. Due process - the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act removes all these safeguards from terrorism suspects, terrorism being considered a class in itself of criminal activity, with its own code of law wherein these guarantees are denied. One could say this is incidence of war - but that is referring to actual fighters and militia, not someone's grandmother using a library to look up "Islam"... Yet technically, according to the Patriot Act, that grandmother could have a National Security Letter taken out on her because of her suspicious behavior of looking up "Islam", and the FBI, without her knowledge, could tap her private emails and phone calls, and exchange them with, say, the government of Sweden, or Israel, or, for that matter, Singapore, should they so desire. Next thing she knows, some Belgian spies are watching her apartment for suspicious activity, trying to find out the facts on the "cell" she supposedy belongs to.

What is she accused of? She can't find out. What are the witnesses against her? Nole mi tangere. Who will speak out in her behalf? Nobody even knows this is happening! It's all secret. We might say "that's a shame" if her name is Ethel Johnson. But what if her name is Naima Abdullateef? Maybe her son is a terrorist. And if he is, she's sure as hell going down with him. Thanks to the Patriot act. She is unwittingly a witness against herself in an entirely clandestine suspicion-based crime investigation. And not just any crime. The Crime of Crimes: terrorism.

5. The 4th Amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congress, no less, has passed an Act of law basically circumventing this right. The right itself, like due process, is considered a weakness, a security hole that must be plugged. The executive branch, no less, now has the right to search and seize private information and communications from any and all private citizens or non-citizens, in the name of the "greater good" of Homeland Security. To hell with probable cause - suspicion is enough! This brings the rule of law right down to where laws become discretionary playthings in the hands of individuals with power. It's emotion and prejudice trumping logic and principle. In our culture of power, what counts is who has the biggest stick, not who carries the torch. If there is a torch, in the power-culture, it's used to torch someone or something, certainly not to light the way.

With the Patriot Act, it's no longer about where we're going. It's about what we're going to take, or how much we can grab.

4. The 2nd Amendment and 8th Amendment.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These two amendments may not seem related, but the Patriot Act mows both down by presuming terror suspects to be undeserving of liberty or human rights - In the case of the 2nd Amendment, bearing arms itself may fall into the category of "suspicious activity", where "suspicious" is largely undefined, and arms could conceivably be used by terrorists, and therefore could raise "red flags." And what was the point of the 2nd Amendment? To keep citizens free from a potentially hostile or oppressive government or even environment, and to maintain their own security and liberty. Now that the Patriot Act has forced citizens to surrender security issues solely to powerful government agents, and made all government's activities protected by secrecy, it creates an atmosphere where federal government power is the common good, is identified as "the greater good" of Homeland Security. People bearing arms forms a threat, and could be prosecuted as "terrorism" under the right circumstances.

In the case of terror suspects, no bail is allowed, and in interrogations, cruel and unusual techniques are mandated, even though the subject of interrogation is only under suspicion and not receiving punishment for a crime of which he has been duly convicted. In other words, if cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional, what about cruel and unusual interrogation methods, where the latter carries the possibility of complete innocence on the part of the subject? These are not questions addressed by the Patriot Act. It's all about the image of a bigger and bigger stick.

3. The First Amendment.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Patriot Act makes it lawful for the government, particularly the Executive Branch, to use "speech" or published writings, on the internet or otherwise, that it finds "suspicious" or indicative of terrorist activity or support or even sympathy, against any individual as "evidence" of a potential security threat hence terrorist threat, and thus prosecute and/or detain that individual without due process based on such speech or "press" activity. If this is not an "abridgement" of the freedom of speech and the press, I don't know what could possibly be.

Not so long ago, we used to chide the Soviet Union for their lack of freedom of the press or of speech, because they would hold it against someone if he criticized the government or spoke out in any way against the regime. Now we have enshrined in law the capability of government to essentially take punitive action against people for their words, perhaps using "keywords" such as "bomb" or "jihad", and such people are treated as guilty until proven innocent. But it's all for the "greater good" of Homeland Security.

As for freedom of religion, there is still more of that here than in most so-called "Muslim countries" (where Muslims are generally not free to practice Islam, except a government-sterilized version), but nonetheless, the Patriot Act does put a damper on religious activities for Muslims in America by making mosques and Islamic gatherings on the "keyword" list for suspicious activities where it is presumed terrorist cells may be congregating and planning their next exploding pot luck dinner. Again, even though the percentage of actual terrorists even among Muslims is infinitesimally slim (by all official counts), it is guilt-by-association, where Muslims are considered fair game in the suspicion-driven money-fueled mandate to find and stop terrorists, even if there aren't any, wherever Joint Terrorism Task Forces are sold.

2. The Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So the Constitution was designed to accomplish all the things the Patriot Act was written to do. Isn't it strange that the Constitution worked for 200 years, and then suddenly, in 2001, stopped working, and needed to be circumvented? Why is liberty, once so precious and powerful, now so cheap and such a liability? Why now is it supposed to "insure domestic tranquility" to dump the very rights that once secured the peace? Why do we now see draconian measures and executive overkill as the road to victory and power? Why is it no longer about checks and balances and suddenly now about who has the biggest stick? Why do we abandon marriage/diplomacy and go for invasion/rape? Did somebody inject us with political testesterone?

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Because the high crime of treason, in a sense the highest or worst national crime, had strict protections so as not to be abused, a new crime had to be invented, called "terrorism", for which no protections for the accused exist, and for which "association" even by being a relative, are considered grounds for conviction. No need for "witnesses" or "overt act" here. All we need is someone who doesn't like you, has a fairly decent reputation, and wants to hurt you by claiming you commit some terrorist act or contribute to terrorism, and you're toast. No trial, no jury. No confession. Someone says he thinks you're guilty - sayonara, baby. Welcome to Homeland Security Hell. But it's all for the "greater good" of Homeland Security. Who cares if it doesn't work?

1. The United States of America, Superpower.

The final casualty of the Patriot Act and all that goes with it, such as military training programs that create a "sense of enmity" by dehumanizing the enemy, so the soldiers can be more vicious, hence more "powerful" (yeah, right), or the fun & games at Gitmo, is the very thing we are trying to defend - America itself.
Without our Constitution, Bill of Rights, freedoms, checks and balances, rule of law, moral high ground, mutual trust, and sense of safety and security at home, without concern for our fellow man or humans, what the hell are we? America? Oh, really? Is America then just a cultural roundup of celebrities and fast-food gluttony? Is it just about money and excess? Is it just about power? Is that what the people of the world are supposed to look up to and say "Leader of the Planet"? Will God "shed His grace" on this brave new world? Are we lying to ourselves?
Americans are a pariah in Europe - just go there and listen to the word on the street. People absolutely hate Americans around the world. Because of the very crassness with which we expediently drop our moral values for more flashy power-plays and resource-grabs. To the world, it's transparent that the U.S. invaded Iraq for geopolitical clout and lotsa petroleum - period. Only the American people diligently believed the obvious lies manufactured by U.S. government spinsters. Only the naive and trusting American journalists played out the lies as if they could possibly be considered seriously as truth - to this very day, they discuss the idea of the Iraq war as a war for democracy in the Middle East, as if this could actually have been genuinely true. Wow - as H.L. Mencken once said, "no one ever lost money overestimating the stupidity of the American people." Why do you think the government is so rich it can squander trillions and you can't even know about it?
And like all great empires, this one too must come to an end. The same way, too - death by hubris. But we have packaged our hubris in one neat little legislative doozie, the Patriot Act. It's supposed to keep America safe from terrorists - by simply eliminating America - so they won't have anything to attack! No democracy, no freedom, no rights, no problem!
The problem is, what the terrorists were trying to attack was not freedom, rights and democracy (contrary to common belief), but oppression, or what they perceived as U.S.-supported oppression. And that still stands. Then someone told some of them that they sure picked a hell of a stupid way to fight oppression. And we've been hard-pressed to find any really threatening cells since then. Though our truthy government tells us they are stopping terrorist plots right and left 24/7. Do you believe that?
Then maybe you believe that we are in Iraq so they don't come here, not in Iraq so they don't have to come here, and not in Iraq so we can keep them all riled up and active so we can grease the war machines and get those ratings up and save the G.O.P. from death by association. Maybe you don't believe it's much easier for them to kill Americans over there on their turf and under their rules than here. Maybe you don't believe that we are fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq in hopes that we can "divide and conquer". Maybe you don't believe we could be so incompetent.
Maybe you still believe in America. I do. It's up to We the People to bring it back from the brink.

Sometimes, you're lucky enough to run into someone who says everything you wanted to say, only somehow better. This is one such article, by the Existential Cowboy. You can read how beautifully John Stuart Mill expressed the basis for our Constitution and its careful design in protecting our freedoms. Freedoms now being undermined by the Bush administration and his Republican cohorts. I've long said that if the terrorists were really after democracy or after our liberty, then we have taken up their fight for them, and that may explain why terrorist activity is mysteriously on a downward slide - except in Muslim v. Muslim bloodbaths, the brainchild of Divide & Conquer Adventurists. Why fight to destroy our liberty when we are doing such a bangup job ourselves?

You might also want to check out why Bush is the torture president, same author.

It is all a part of the new movement of Armageddonists. It's their cause celebre. Fight the last fight, you might say. After all, if they kill everyone off, no one can attack them again. Sort of like the ultimate cancer cure. Chemotherapy for the planet. Just eliminate life! Brilliant Republican victory strategy! Get rid of immigrants, aliens, non-English-speakers, non-Israeli-sympathizers, non-Christians who are not Jewish, and ultimately, anyone who refuses to swear on a stack of Machiavellis. Get rid of anyone who uses expressions like "democracy now" and other socialist catchphrases. Because we need to bend the constitution and screw the founding fathers, except insofar as they appear on Legal Tender. We are the Armageddonists. Let's bring it on down - NOW!

Hopefully, someone will actually use their mind and turn off the circuit breaker at the Other Evil Church. Between all these evil churches, there's this boiling cauldron, and I'm not yet sure what's for supper - just so it's not the last one...

Milton Friedman, The Economy, & Stock goes up in Old Quotes

If you really need some inspiration, check out this page of quotes by M.W. Hodges of the Grandfather Economic Report. Here's a man who, along with the late great economist Milton Friedman, believes in less government - seriously less government. OK, so I sound like a deep-down conservative. Maybe I am.

One day about 29 years ago my husband and I were driving to Nevada for a trip, and became riveted by a man talking on the radio about the economy, how the government was not living up to the standards set by our founding fathers, how Congressmen were not supposed to be lawyers but most of them are, about how Big Government is encroaching on our freedom. We lost the name of that man, but always wanted to remember who he was. It suddenly dawned on me after reading the Hodges website and subsequently some other memorials that he was Milton Friedman. Not only a great economist, but an eloquent and charismatic one, too.

One particular quote struck me as controversial: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Quincy Adams, 6th President of USA. These days, "religious people" are considered almost anti-Constitutional. What he must have meant, of course, was not extremist zealots, but people whose faith moderated their behavior, whose belief in a Higher Power coexisted with Higher values. Such people will not engage in petty interpretations and glossover Constitutional spins - hopefully. I don't consider Pat Robertson one of those "moral and religious people". Nor do I consider many of those who play with the word "evil" to be especially "good". But this quote does bring up the possibility of the Constitution needing contributions from the people living under it.

In other words, the Constitution cannot be used like a Ron Popeil oven: "Set it, and forget it."
Most people don't even know exactly what it is. But they know they like it. Because they set their opinions on it, and then they forgot it. EZ Democracy: The spin.

Censorship by Aggression vs. Free Speech for Wimps: Don’t Throw Out the Scales with the Blindfold, Ms. Liberty

Bridgethought of the Day: If it’s about the Constitution, it’s probably about balance.

Imagine the drafters of the Constitution in cartoon heaven with cloud-like thoughts floating over their heads, collectively envisioning Blind Justice holding the Scales … pretty great vision for a Constitution, that …

Plunging suddenly to earth, we are hit with the most well-known and fervently beloved feature of the constitution, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

Since “freedom of speech” refers specifically to the Constitutional Amendment No. 1, it follows that we should examine it as defined by its usage in that document. Further looking at the interpretation of this protection, it is clear that it refers to the free expression of opinion on public issues. Having the freedom to express one’s views is of tantamount importance in a democracy, where sharing opinions should lead to a general consensus, and the ability to voice dissent is critical in making that democracy work and promote peace and prosperity, not totalitarian-based security.

It is not, however, about self-expression per se. That is important because often what gets bandied about as “free speech” is simply referring to the use of profanity, obscenity, extreme expressions, or such things as wearing revealing clothing, torn jeans, or tattoos. Self-expression tends to get confused with the expression of an opinion or view, and so someone who dresses provocatively or rides with a motorcycle gang is considered a proponent of the First Amendment, and using his “God-given right to freedom of speech.” To pass a law against these activities may be dead in the water from sheer unpopularity, but it shouldn’t be a Constitutional issue.

Of course, the Constitution only refers to government interference in the right to the free expression of ideas and opinions. There is no law enforcing a person’s right to free speech, but only an Amendment prohibiting the passing of laws that would infringe on that right. However, at times self-expression seems to supercede freedom of speech to the point where the latter is in fact abridged, not by government, but by the abuse of power by media players, strongmen (and women) in the field of communications and “the press”.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, “media” did not exist as a power-broker in the sense it does today. Yes, there were press outlets and controls, and yes, the press of the day did influence public opinion and did have control over what people heard or did not hear, and what opinions were promulgated. But even so, the press of that day was also constrained by its very nature - being restricted to print. There was a certain decorum to how news and opinions were presented that remained until the media “revolution” of the late 20th Century. Suddenly now time is compressed, and a minute has become an interminably long time interval as compared with the 15-second spot. There’s no time to contemplate, to go into historical background and detailed descriptions and analysis. There’s barely enough time to get in a few keywords. And you’d better choose them well, because the competition for space/time is stiff.

The ad campaign has become the Press Standard for speech. Each word is a sentence in itself. Grammar intrudes as an archaic artifice. Instead we read as we enter Wal-Mart: “Good. Works.” and “Always”. What do you mean, “always”? What’s so “good” about “works”, and what “works”? Why even ask? We were led down the path to understand it means “always cheaper” and “doing good for the community”, the two main Wal-Mart themes that drive their profit margins ever higher. So in this type of speech-world, we have the rise of the sharp-tongued sound-bite-delivery icons, personalities cultivated for their aura of free-speaking, opinionated style delivered on time, every time, in as few, but shocking, words as possible.

“Evil”, “hot”, “apocalyptic”, “secret”, “sex”, “killer”, “clout”, “power”, “terror”, etc. We need magnetic words to attract large numbers of iron filings, aka ratings, aka “people”, to our profit-driven presentations of “speech”, presented as “what people really think” and “you decide”, as if all of this was actually encouraging some kind of elevated free speech right-in-the-sky. This First Amendment has been raised to the height of Icon, even though until we got into the 20th Century, it was actually never invoked to strike down a single law. National security, protection against libel, and “clear and present danger” to the public or the State (be it federal or local), or the people in it, all superceded any First Amendment right - in days of yore.

Had this view been prevalent, it would have been likely that cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad would not have been protected on Constitutional grounds, since they could incite such volatile emotions as to present a danger to social stability, and hence, threaten national security. Today, however, there exists an argument that the Muslims were wrong to be offended to the point that they reacted violently, and we should not be held responsible for inciting their rage. This argument is typical of those favoring personal self-expression over decency-mitigated public opinion-expression. My personal view is that this argument is irrelevant since one cannot predict the response of another, and that the view expressed could be done in such a way as to not blatantly inflame already fanned fires and emotions in a time when so little is being done to put out fires and so much done to set many more. In other words, I believe in the more old-fashioned or traditional view wherein decorum and general decency is an appropriate mitigator of raw inflammatory self-expression. You can get the idea across a better way.

My basis for this view is that the issue of self-expression should not supercede the issue of freedom of speech as the expression of ideas and opinions. When it becomes overly focused on personal self-expression, you get a situation where one man’s right to offend another becomes constitutionally protected, while more mild-mannered types must face the firing squad of media aggression, from which they can find no relief. In fact, the media “darlings”, those rapid-fire attack dogs of opinion, leave little or no room for dissent, dominating the world of opinion with fangs and sabers, those sale-grabbing, ratings-raising shock-value words, and so the mild-mannered anti-war vegan weenie goes to bed silent. Who hears what thinking, contemplative people have to say? Do they even exist? In a world where conformity confirms existence, is there really a silent majority? Or just so much dark matter that we really aren’t sure is even there, or if it’s there, what it is…?

Ann Coulter v. Freedom of Speech.

It’s an obvious choice: Ms. Free Speech herself, acid-tongued Ann is the Poster Girl for Censorship by Aggression. Being vociferous or pointedly aggressive is a popular commodity in the media, but it is not protected by the First Amendment. It protects the expression of opinion, yes, but not when the manner of expression itself practically inhibits or abridges others' ability to express their dissenting views. Thus, the shouting matches that pass for "free speech" on Fox News are actually orgies of censorship - of views different than the shows' power-brokers or venom-spewers. Profanity per se then is not protected by the Constitution, but the expression of an opposite opinion is. Similarly, Ann Coulter's vicious tirades against those whose opinions she hates in a sense censors their free expression of opinion. Her attacks on the 9-11 widows who happen not to revel in George W's warslime were not merely libelous, but almost extortionary - a threat to anyone who could similarly express their views. The net effect: chill, Amendment #1...

Natalie Maines, the Dixie Chick who famously expressed her "shame" at being from the same state as Prez Bush, was made a pariah, the Chicks' music shunned, and a general backlash against her sent a chill down First Amendment-lovers' spines - those few still among us, that is. They weren't offended at a song expressing a desire to murder a husband in revenge for mistreatment, a criminal act, but rather by a political opinion freely expressed. Hmmmmm...

Of course, there's no law against limiting another's freedom of speech by aggressive tactics. The Constitution only protects us from government enacting laws or regulations that limit such freedom. And the media is not a law, nor are any people, taken as individuals, "government". But there are laws that limit freedom of speech, notably in the Patriot Act, where suspicion of terrorism can be based on statements people make, and that suspicion is grounds for prosecution. Once branded a terrorist, a person loses all his rights as a human being and becomes, for all intents and purposes, a cartoon villain in some video game from hell. The War on Terror has opened up a black hole in the Bill of Rights in which everything we know and believe to be right and true no longer exists, and even light cannot escape, let alone democracy or that archaic idea, "freedom."

In this world where saying something critical of Administration policies can mean TV death by rabies, there's also a substantial tide of human rebellion against the stifling atmosphere and vicious attacks dominating the right. The way some such as Bill O'Reilly smear dissenters from their hallowed views puts them directly at odds with the goals of the Constitution - to allow the free exchange of ideas in order to further democracy, not promote My Way.

It is this very threat to our Constitutional rights and human liberty that caused the American public to lose their stomach for things as they are, and for which Democrats have regained a measure of power. But Dems beware - it's not a liberal/conservative issue. It's the "liberal"
aggression against "conservative" views that brought Republicans to power in the first place. Power tends to corrupt - when maintaining and increasing it begins to encroach on the more fundamental values, such as freedom of speech - in the traditional sense.

We have to keep remembering that dissent is not unpatriotic - trying to suppress it is. Sometimes what we think of as "freedom of speech" - virulent, power-laden, heavy-handed Talk - can actually undermine the Real freedom of speech: saying what you think.

Take that, Acid Ann - and don't tread on me.