lainie duro

"we ask for the patience and cooperation of the american people if and when they encounter additional measures undertaken by local law enforcement and federal law enforcement authorities, and others who are charged with maintaining the safety of the public" --John Ashcroft

Does this freak anyone else out? What "additional measures" are going to be undertaken? Are we supposed to just stand by and allow our government to run willy nilly over citizens' rights because of threats?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lynda

Went to the Social Security office today. Now, we live in the boonies. I
seriously doubt that anyone could find us on the map let alone would think
about making a "statement" here.

At the door was an *armed* rent-a-cop (which I find a tad more frightening
than the possibility of any terrorist acts up here) who demanded that all
women dump out their purses to be inspected, that all folks with fanny
pouches and backpacks dump them out also. However, what didn't make any
sense to me was that he didn't request that folks carrying those zippered
daytimers that some folks use instead of purses dump them out. Nor did he
ask the gal with the dog to dump out the dog's backpack. Of course, the guy
looked to be about 70, so precisely what use would he be if some armed
terrorists decided to take over our local Social Security office, all 1000
square feet of it.

Life has become weird!

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: lainie duro <lainie@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:47 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] John Ashcroft's speech yesterday


> "we ask for the patience and cooperation of the american people if and
when they encounter additional measures undertaken by local law enforcement
and federal law enforcement authorities, and others who are charged with
maintaining the safety of the public" --John Ashcroft
>
> Does this freak anyone else out? What "additional measures" are going to
be undertaken? Are we supposed to just stand by and allow our government to
run willy nilly over citizens' rights because of threats?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

Yes, that most definitely freaks me out. :(
Sheila

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "lainie duro" <lainie@m...> wrote:
> "we ask for the patience and cooperation of the american people if
and when they encounter additional measures undertaken by local law
enforcement and federal law enforcement authorities, and others who
are charged with maintaining the safety of the public" --John Ashcroft
>
> Does this freak anyone else out? What "additional measures" are
going to be undertaken? Are we supposed to just stand by and allow
our government to run willy nilly over citizens' rights because of
threats?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Helen Hegener

> > Does this freak anyone else out? What "additional measures" are
>going to be undertaken? Are we supposed to just stand by and allow
>our government to run willy nilly over citizens' rights because of
>threats?

Well... For what it's worth, this was posted to a state list this
morning (I've stripped the original poster's identifiers from the
message). I found it interesting reading, but please note the
excellent caveats included by the original poster:

>In our national effort to preserve our lives from terrorism, have we
>given our federal government way too much leeway with our
>Constitutional rights? Here's one opinion. It may be a good place to
>start a discussion of the Constitution within our own homes, with our
>children and even as parents and citizens.
>
>The National Patriot Act bill in effect could be arguably one of the
>most significant issues of liberty we have faced in years. No matter
>what your political or ideological persuasion, the implications of the
>New USA Patriot Act could be far-reaching, and change the landscape of
>American liberty and justice for years to come. It is certainly worth
>looking at quite seriously.
>
>By the way, please note. This article is written by John Kaminski.
>It is published on a web page that is "Breaking News and Views for the
>Progressive Community." I would hardly consider myself one to embrace
>this type of web site on a regular basis. (I was referred to the site
>by the article, and had never known of it before now. It is certainly
>a politically left-leaning web site.) But I think there are times
>that people of different ideological positions can see a higher
>principle from their particular vantage point. This is one of those
>cases. It is up to each of us to judge whether the information
>presented fits into our own personal political framework.
>
>For me, when it comes to being vigilant to protect liberty, we have
>just hit on one of those higher principles. And I am willing to
>embrace those whom I may differ with on other issues for the sake of
>common ground. Let us choose our wars carefully. This may be one we
>wish to choose.
>The alternative could be much worse.
>
>One more thought. We currently live under an administration that
>appears to be (at the moment) pro-homeschooling. Another
>administration may not be so disposed. I am not particularly
>pro-Bush, nor anti-Bush for that matter. There are people in this
>administration that I like and others that I don't particularly like.
>My point here is that even though the current administration may not
>abuse this act today, it is now a part of our federal system of laws.
>Future abuse is quite probable. So now is the time to decide whether
>or not it should be opposed or not. We shouldn't wait until its abuse
>is obvious. Then may be too late. And probably will be.
>
>Remember Jefferson's words, "The price of freedom is eternal
>vigilance."
>
>Enjoy the read. Then decide how your family will respond.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>+++++
>
> Published on Friday, November 9, 2001
> The New USA PATRIOT Act
> Are You a Patriot?
> by John Kaminski
>
> The USA Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land,
>has
>eliminated the Constitutional guarantee of probable cause when
>investigating
>a crime, and now allows the police — at any time and for any reason —
>to
>enter and search your house, your files, your bank account — and not
>even
>tell you about it.
>
> Are you a patriot? Well, the fact of the matter is, you
>are
>whether you want to be or not. But are you an American or a mindless
>corporate stooge? Well, that's another question.
>
> The recent passage and signing of the Patriot Act has
>effectively nullified at least six amendments of the Bill of Rights
>addendum
>to the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this, America is no longer
>America,
>but a police state, pure and simple. This Patriot Bill is, in fact, a
>massive violation of the Constitution it purports to uphold and
>improve.
>
> Among other things, it mandates that judges give police
>search
>warrants when they ask for them, for any reason. In fact, judges can't
>deny
>these warrants to police, because police don't need a stated reason to
>ask
>for them.
>
> The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of American freedom.
>During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution in the 1790s,
>its
>opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would
>open the
>way to tyranny by the central government. Many states would not have
>signed
>the original Constitution without knowing that these amendments would
>be
>added, according to the federal website which displays the
>Constitution.
>These amendments became known as the Bill of Rights, which Americans
>have
>cherished, protected and fought for for over 200 years.
>
> The Patriot Act rushed through Congress and signed by
>President
>George W. Bush is a major step toward a totalitarian state in which
>individual liberty is crushed by the whim of police and corporate
>demagogues
>masquerading as patriots.
>
> The Patriot Act:
>
> a.. Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech
>guarantee,
>right to peaceably assemble provision, and petition the government for
>redress of grievances provision; it violates the First Amendment to
>the
>Constitution three times. More on this below.
>
>
> b.. Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable
>cause
>in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the
>Constitution reads: "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 of things to be seized." The Patriot Act,
>now
>passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable
>cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to
>enter
>and search your house — and not even tell you about it.
>
>
> c.. Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for
>indefinite
>incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General
>to be
>threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no
>person
>shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
>law,
>and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people
>to be
>kept in prison for life without even a trial.
>
>
> d.. Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right
>to a
>speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.
>
>
> e.. Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual
>punishment).
>
>
> f.. Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without
>conviction).
> Most of the following information is taken from the ACLU's
>written objections to Congress before and after the passage of the
>Patriot
>Act. My comments are in brackets [].
>
> The Patriot Act does the following (I'm putting the
>immigration
>stuff at the bottom because that least affects most of the people who
>will
>be reading this):
>
>
> a.. [It keeps judges out the process and lets cops do
>what
>they want (cops meaning FBI, CIA, etc.)] It minimizes judicial
>supervision
>of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities
>in
>anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations
>unrelated to terrorism. [Unrelated to terrorism — that means anything.
>How
>long do you think before that includes political dissent? Oops, too
>late,
>that's already happened.]
>
>
> b.. It expands the ability of the government to conduct
>secret
>searches — again in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine
>criminal
>investigations unrelated to terrorism. [Unrelated to terrorism — that
>means
>anything they want it to mean. If we don't agree with Nazi Republican
>ideas,
>they can now arrest us.]
>
>
> c.. It gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of
>State
>the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and
>block
>any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under
>this
>provision the payment of membership dues is a deportable offense.
>[That
>means, among other things, that Bush and Ashcroft can decide
>Greenpeace and
>Ralph Nader are terrorists, and under this law, it can put them in
>jail.]
>
>
> d.. It grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical,
>financial, mental health, and educational records about individuals
>without
>having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order. [It
>means they
>can do what they want for no good reason, except to persecute and
>imprison
>people with humanistic, noncorporate rip-off views.]
>
>
> e.. It could lead to large-scale investigations of
>American
>citizens for "intelligence" purposes and use of intelligence
>authorities to
>by-pass probable cause requirements in criminal cases. [Bye bye peace
>movement. You're all going to jail; me too.]
>
>
> f.. It puts the CIA and other intelligence agencies back
>in
>the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central
>Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets for
>intelligence
>surveillance in the United States. [This is what America worked so
>hard for
>all those years to eliminate.]
>
>
> g.. It allows searches of highly personal financial
>records
>without notice and without judicial review based on a very low
>standard that
>does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an
>ongoing
>terrorism investigation. [They can do any of this stuff without any
>reason
>whatsoever. This is the kind of freedom these fascists always wanted —
>freedom to put everyone who disagrees with them in jail.]
>
>
> h.. It creates a broad new definition of "domestic
>terrorism"
>that could sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest and
>subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties. [This means they
>can
>jail anyone who disagrees with them, and keep them in jail for life
>without
>a trial.]
> On immigration specifically, the new law permits the
>detention
>of non-citizens facing deportation based merely on the Attorney
>General's
>certification that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" the
>non-citizen
>endangers national security. While immigration or criminal charges
>must be
>filed within seven days, these charges need not have anything to do
>with
>terrorism, but can be minor visa violations of the kind that normally
>would
>not result in detention at all. Non-citizens ordered removed on visa
>violations could be indefinitely detained if they are stateless, their
>country of origin refuses to accept them, or they are granted relief
>from
>deportation because they would be tortured if they were returned to
>their
>country of origin.
>
> It permits the Attorney General to indefinitely
>incarcerate or
>detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny readmission
>to the
>United States of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents)
>for
>engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. [Or, what used to
>be
>the First Amendment. Now, it doesn't exist.]
>
> Let me just take a bit more of your valuable time to make
>a
>couple of points crystal clear, again using material from the ACLU's
>objections to passage of the Patriot Act.
>
> Wiretapping and Intelligence Surveillance
>
> The wiretapping and intelligence provisions in the USA
>Patriot
>Act sound two themes: they minimize the role of a judge in ensuring
>that law
>enforcement wiretapping is conducted legally and with proper
>justification,
>and they permit use of intelligence investigative authority to by-pass
>normal criminal procedures that protect privacy. Specifically:
>
> 1. The USA Patriot Act allows the government to use its
>intelligence gathering power to circumvent the standard that must be
>met for
>criminal wiretaps. Currently FISA surveillance, which does not contain
>many
>of the same checks and balances that govern wiretaps for criminal
>purposes,
>can be used only when foreign intelligence gathering is the primary
>purpose.
>The new law allows use of FISA surveillance authority even if the
>primary
>purpose were a criminal investigation. Intelligence surveillance
>merely
>needs to be only a "significant" purpose. This provision authorizes
>unconstitutional physical searches and wiretaps: though it is
>searching
>primarily for evidence of crime, law enforcement conducts a search
>without
>probable cause of crime.
>
> 2. The USA Patriot Act extends a very low threshold of
>proof for
>access to Internet communications that are far more revealing than
>numbers
>dialed on a phone. Under current law, a law enforcement agent can get
>a pen
>register or trap and trace order requiring the telephone company to
>reveal
>the numbers dialed to and from a particular phone. To get such an
>order, law
>enforcement must simply certify to a judge — who must grant the
>order — that
>the information to be obtained is "relevant to an ongoing criminal
>investigation." This is a very low level of proof, far less than
>probable
>cause. This provision apparently applies to law enforcement efforts to
>determine what websites a person had visited, which is like giving law
>enforcement the power — based only on its own certification — to
>require the
>librarian to report on the books you had perused while visiting the
>public
>library. This provision extends a low standard of proof — far less
>than
>probable cause — to actual "content" information.
>
> 3. In allowing for "nationwide service" of pen register
>and trap
>and trace orders, the law further marginalizes the role of the
>judiciary. It
>authorizes what would be the equivalent of a blank warrant in the
>physical
>world: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills
>in
>the places to be searched. This is not consistent with the important
>Fourth
>Amendment privacy protection of requiring that warrants specify the
>place to
>be searched. Under this legislation, a judge is unable to meaningfully
>monitor the extent to which her order was being used to access
>information
>about Internet communications.
>
> 4. The Act also grants the FBI broad access in
>"intelligence"
>investigations to records about a person maintained by a business. The
>FBI
>need only certify to a court that it is conducting an intelligence
>investigation and that the records it seeks may be relevant. With this
>new
>power, the FBI can force a business to turn over a person's
>educational,
>medical, financial, mental health and travel records based on a very
>low
>standard of proof and without meaningful judicial oversight.
>
> The ACLU noted that the FBI already had broad authority to
>monitor telephone and Internet communications. Most of the changes
>apply not
>just to surveillance of terrorists, but instead to all surveillance in
>the
>United States. [All surveillance. The WTO geeks will love this one.
>Now we
>can be just like China.]
>
> Law enforcement authorities -- even when they are required
>to
>obtain court orders - have great leeway under current law to
>investigate
>suspects in terrorist attacks. Current law already provided, for
>example,
>that wiretaps can be obtained for the crimes involved in terrorist
>attacks,
>including destruction of aircraft and aircraft piracy.
>
> The FBI also already had authority to intercept these
>communications without showing probable cause of crime for
>"intelligence"
>purposes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In fact,
>FISA
>wiretaps now exceed wiretapping for all domestic criminal
>investigations.
>The standards for obtaining a FISA wiretap are lower than the
>standards for
>obtaining a criminal wiretap.
>
> Criminal Justice
>
> The law dramatically expands the use of secret searches.
>Normally, a person is notified when law enforcement conducts a search.
>In
>some cases regarding searches for electronic information, law
>enforcement
>authorities can get court permission to delay notification of a
>search. The
>USA Patriot Act extends the authority of the government to request
>"secret
>searches" to every criminal case. This vast expansion of power goes
>far
>beyond anything necessary to conduct terrorism investigations.
>
> The Act also allows for the broad sharing of sensitive
>information in criminal cases with intelligence agencies, including
>the CIA,
>the NSA, the INS and the Secret Service. It permits sharing of
>sensitive
>grand jury and wiretap information without judicial review or any
>safeguards
>regarding the future use or dissemination of such information.
>
> These information sharing authorizations and mandates
>effectively put the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans:
>Once
>the CIA makes clear the kind of information it seeks, law enforcement
>agencies can use tools like wiretaps and intelligence searches to
>provide
>data to the CIA. In fact, the law specifically gives the Director of
>Central
>Intelligence - who heads the CIA -- the power to identify domestic
>intelligence requirements.
>
> The law also creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism."
>The
>new offense threatens to transform protesters into terrorists if they
>engage
>in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life." Members of
>Operation Rescue, the Environmental Liberation Front and Greenpeace,
>for
>example, have all engaged in activities that could subject them to
>prosecution as terrorists. Then, under this law, the dominos begin to
>fall.
>Those who provide lodging or other assistance to these "domestic
>terrorists"
>could have their homes wiretapped and could be prosecuted.
>
> [If you have any doubt that these are the trappings of a
>police
>state, then you need to go back to elementary school and read about
>the
>Constitution, which we no longer have.]
>
> [Fox News Channel reports tonight that 90% of the American
>people are really happy with what Bush has done. I think somebody
>wrote this
>all in a book once, that when a free people gave away their freedom,
>they
>did it happily and with much fanfare.]
>
> John Kaminski live in Englewood Florida. E-mail:
>skylax@...
>
> ###
>
>
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE
> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
>not
>always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
>making
>such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
>environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
>scientific, and
>social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
>of any
>such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
>Copyright
>Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
>this
>site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
>interest in receiving the included information for research and
>educational
>purposes. For more information go to:
><http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
>If you wish to use
>copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
>beyond
>'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
>
>
> © Copyrighted 1997-2001 www.commondreams.org A 'Cookie-Free'
>Website
>

Diane

Discussions I've had about the constitution include the information that laws do not supercede it.
Laws are frequently passed that are unconstitutional, and are then overturned.

Therefore, all the following are hyperbole. (comments below)


> >In our national effort to preserve our lives from terrorism, have we
> >given our federal government way too much leeway with our
> >Constitutional rights? Here's one opinion. It may be a good place to
> >start a discussion of the Constitution within our own homes, with our
> >children and even as parents and citizens.

> > The USA Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land,
> >has eliminated the Constitutional guarantee of probable cause when
> >investigating
> >a crime, and now allows the police — at any time and for any reason —
> >to enter and search your house, your files, your bank account — and not
> >even tell you about it.

> > The recent passage and signing of the Patriot Act has
> >effectively nullified at least six amendments of the Bill of Rights
> >addendum
> >to the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this, America is no longer
> >America,
> >but a police state, pure and simple. This Patriot Bill is, in fact, a
> >massive violation of the Constitution it purports to uphold and
> >improve.

> > The Patriot Act rushed through Congress and signed by
> >President
> >George W. Bush is a major step toward a totalitarian state in which
> >individual liberty is crushed by the whim of police and corporate
> >demagogues masquerading as patriots.

> > The Patriot Act:
> >
> > a.. Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech
> >guarantee,
> >right to peaceably assemble provision, and petition the government for
> >redress of grievances provision; it violates the First Amendment to
> >the
> >Constitution three times. More on this below.
> >
> >
> > b.. Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable
> >cause
> >in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the
> >Constitution reads: "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 of things to be seized." The Patriot Act,
> >now
> >passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable
> >cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to
> >enter
> >and search your house — and not even tell you about it.
> >
> >
> > c.. Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for
> >indefinite
> >incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General
> >to be
> >threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no
> >person
> >shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
> >law,
> >and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people
> >to be
> >kept in prison for life without even a trial.
> >
> >
> > d.. Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right
> >to a
> >speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.
> >
> >
> > e.. Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual
> >punishment).
> >
> >
> > f.. Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without
> >conviction).
> > Most of the following information is taken from the ACLU's
> >written objections to Congress before and after the passage of the
> >Patriot Act.

Why would lawmakers pass a law that is so very obviously unconstitutional? Because it's popular! They
get the credit for having passed it, then it's overturned by the courts. It's not the first time, it
won't be the last; in fact, it's really common for laws that can't and obviously won't be upheld to
pass for political points.

:-) Diane

Tia Leschke

At 07:00 PM 11/14/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Yes, that most definitely freaks me out. :(
>Sheila

Me too. It appears that the terrorists have accomplished one of their
purposes, destroying our freedom. And they got the government to do it for
them. We seem to be doing much the same in Canada. Well, of course we
have to, or Bush might get mad at us.........sigh.
Tia

Tia Leschke leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
**************************************************************************
It is the answers which separate us, the questions which unite us. - Janice
Levy