|
DOREMUS OBSERVES :
MATTERS OF INTEREST
Doremus Jessup, editor of the Fort
Beulah The Daily Informer, in Sinclair Lewis'
famous book "It Can't Happen Here", at its
conclusion, drove out saluted by the meadow larks, and
onward all day, to a hidden cabin in the Northern Woods
where quiet men awaited news of freedom.....still Doremus
goes on, into the sunrise, for a Doremus Jessup can never
die.
Excerpts from letters and texts will appear at
random in this series. J.Braddell,editor
Dying
to belong
Thousands
of non-Americans join the US military hoping it will
speed up their citizenship applications, writes Duncan
Campbell
Tuesday
April 22, 2003
Rumours always float around during wars but one of the
most pervasive in California and Mexico was that anyone
who joined the US armed forces for the war would be
automatically granted citizenship. This led to hundreds
of calls to the American embassy in Mexico City from
young men who saw the possibility of service in the
military as a less risky way of entering the US than
wandering through the desert.
It was,
in fact, just a rumour - although joining the military
will speed up a person's citizenship application - but
the war did demonstrate how many young men who had joined
up were not, in fact, US citizens. Five of the first 10
Californians who died in combat were non-citizens.
Last
week, two members of the American military killed in Iraq
were granted posthumous citizenship, a decision which
highlighted the fact that around 37,000 members of the US
military are not Americans and the figures are on the
increase. Around half of new recruits to the armed forces
in some LA areas are non-citizens whose service in the
military will accelerate their route to citizenship
..ALTERNATIVELY:
- NEW YORK (IPS) - Although
only a handful of them have gone public, at least
several hundred U.S. soldiers have applied for
conscientious objector (CO) status since January,
says a rights group.
- The Center on Conscience and War
(CCW), which advises military personnel on CO
discharges, reports that since the start of 2003
- when many soldiers realised they might have to
fight in the Iraq war - there has been a massive
increase in the number of enlisted soldiers who
have applied for CO status.
- The bare minimum is several
hundred, and this number only includes "the
ones that have come to my group and to groups
we're associated with",a CCW official J.E.
McNeil told IPS.
Local Officials Rise Up to Defy
The Patriot Act
By Evelyn Nieves, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 21, 2003; Page A01
ARCATA, Calif. -- This North Coast city may look sweet --
old, low-to-the-ground buildings, town square with a
bronze statue of William McKinley, ambling pickup trucks
-- but it acts like a radical. Arcata was one of the
first cities to pass resolutions against global warming
and a unilateral war in Iraq.
Last month, it joined the rising chorus of municipalities
to pass a resolution urging local law enforcement
officials and others contacted by federal officials to
refuse requests under the Patriot Act that they believe
violate an individual's civil rights under the
Constitution. Then, the city went a step further.
This little city (pop.: 16,000) has become the first in
the nation to pass an ordinance that outlaws voluntary
compliance with the Patriot Act.
"I call this a nonviolent, preemptive attack,"
said David Meserve, the freshman City Council member who
drafted the ordinance with the help of the Arcata city
attorney, city manager and police chief. The Arcata
ordinance may be the first, but it may not be the last.
Across the country, citizens have been forming Bill of
Rights defense committees to fight what they consider the
most egregious curbs on liberties contained in the
Patriot Act. The 342-page act, passed by Congress one
month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, with
little input from a public still in shock, has been most
publicly criticized by librarians and bookstore owners
for the provisions that force them to secretly hand over
information about a patron's reading and Internet habits.
But citizens groups are becoming increasingly organized
and forceful in rebuking the Patriot Act and the Homeland
Security Act for giving the federal government too much
power, especially since a draft of the Justice
Department's proposed sequel to the Patriot Act (dubbed
Patriot II) was publicly leaked in January.
Both the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, which
created the Cabinet-level department, follow the
Constitution, says Justice Department spokesman Mark
Corallo. Federal law trumps local law in any case, which
would mean Arcata would be in for a fight -- a fight it
wants -- if the feds did make a Patriot Act request.
LaRae Quy, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco FBI
office, whose jurisdiction includes Arcata, said that the
agency has no plans to use the Patriot Act in Arcata any
time soon, but added that people misunderstood it.
Although some people feel their privacy rights are being
infringed upon, she said, the agency still has to show
"probable cause for any actions we take."
But to date, 89 cities have passed resolutions condemning
the Patriot Act, with at least a dozen more in the works.
Although cities across the country passed antiwar
resolutions before the attack on Iraq with little notice
from the administration, Talanian said that the
anti-Patriot Act resolutions are "not quite as
symbolic" as those that passed against the war.
Lawmakers and lobbyists on both ends of the political
spectrum are beginning to sound more alarms about the
antiterrorism act, which gave the government
unprecedented powers to spy on citizens. Rep. Bernard
Sanders (I-Vt.) has introduced a bill, the "Freedom
to Read Protection Act" (H.R. 1157), that would
restore the privacy protections for library book
borrowers and bookstore purchases. The bill has 73
co-sponsors.
Earlier this month, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the ranking
Democrat, asked the Justice Department for more
information on the government's use of the Patriot Act .
Sensenbrenner and Conyers sent an 18-page letter to
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, challenging the
department's increased use of "national security
letters" requiring businesses to hand over
electronic records on finances, telephone calls, e-mails
and other personal data.
They questioned the guidelines under which investigators
can subpoena private books, records, papers, documents
and other items; asked whether the investigations
targeted only people identified as agents of a foreign
power; and
asked the attorney general to "identify the specific
authority relied on for issuing these letters."
The Justice Department said it is working on the request.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64173-2003Apr20.html
.Patriot Act II
Over the past few months, a staggering array of truly
alarming programs, policies, and legislative proposals
has come to light: conducting searches without warrants;
military tribunals for U.S. citizens; dispensing with
habeas corpus; increased wiretapping and electronic
eavesdropping; video surveillance; see-through-clothing
x-ray machines; "data mining" of financial
transactions and virtually all electronic databases;
national identification cards; and biometric
identification. Some of these schemes have been scuttled
(temporarily) by exposure; others have been adopted or
await legislative action.
One of the most frightening proposals to be leaked to the
public is a piece of draft legislation crafted by
activists at the U.S. Justice Department. Officially
entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
(DSEA), the legislation has been dubbed "Patriot
Act II" by opponents, since it appears to
be a follow-up punch to the USA Patriot Act of
2001, passed in the wake of 9-11. The Justice
Department originally denied that the draft legislation
existed, even though it had provided copies of the bill
— marked "CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION" and dated January 9th — to
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President
Richard Cheney.
As we write, almost none of the 535 members of Congress
have received official copies of the draft legislation,
including members of the Judiciary Committees of the
House and Senate, who normally would be expected to have
early access to the proposed law. A whistleblower within
Justice leaked the draft, however, and it is now publicly
available. (See www.thenewamerican.com/focus/patriotact/.)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a leading voice in Congress for
preserving constitutional restraints on government, finds
the bill’s provisions very alarming. "Rather
than effectively fight threats to our national security
and safety," he said in a statement issued by his
office, "Patriot Two would endanger
the liberty of every American citizen and destroy what
remains of America’s constitutional republic. This
proposal gives the Federal Government expanded power to
snoop into the private affairs of American citizens
without acquiring a warrant or meeting the constitutional
standards of probable cause. However,
perhaps the most disturbing portion of the draft is the
provision that would give the government the power to
revoke United States citizenship for engaging in
political activity."
According to Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law
professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution,
the legislation "raises a lot of serious
concerns." "It’s troubling that they have
gotten this far along and they’ve been telling
people there is nothing in the works," he said,
referring to the Justice Department’s secrecy and
deception in dealing with Congress. Patriot II,
says Professor Cole, "would radically expand
law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities,
reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance,
authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on
unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’and create new
death penalties.
Some of the key disturbing provisions of the 86-page Patriot
Act II draft include:
• Definition of "terrorist
suspect": Section 304 states that the
term "‘suspected terrorist’ means any
person as to whom the Attorney General or the Secretary
of Defense … has determined that there is reason to
believe" has engaged in terrorism as defined in
various sections of the United States Code, or who falls
into a number of other broad categories, or "is a
member of a terrorist organization designated as
such."
• Definition of "designated
terrorist organization": According to
Section 423, "the term ‘designated terrorist
organization’ means an organization which … is
designated as a terrorist organization by an Executive
Order" or under the authority of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, or section 5 of the United Nations
Participation Act. A "designated terrorist
organization" can also be a single person
"listed in or designated by an Executive Order as
supporting terrorist activity...."
• Presumptive pre-trial detention:
Section 405 would "presumptively deny release to
persons charged with crimes listed" in title 18 of
the U.S. Code "which contains a standard list of
offenses that are likely to be committed by
terrorists." While it would seem sensible to deny
bail and release to members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and
other violent terrorist groups, the open-ended definition
of terrorist groups provided in the law, as we will show
below, would make it possible for the government
similarly to deny bail to political opponents not even
remotely connected to terrorism.
• Expatriation: Section
501, one of DSEA’s most radical sections, provides
that an American citizen may be stripped of his
citizenship — and the constitutionally protected
rights that go with citizenship — if charged with
"joining or serving in, or providing material
support … to, a terrorist organization … if the
organization is engaged in hostilities against the United
States, its people, or its national security
interests."
Patriot II would also provide frightening powers to the
executive branch in its sections concerning secret
arrests, warrantless searches, and electronic
surveillance. Those who think that these powers would
never be abused by President George W. Bush, or that
they would be directed solely at the likes of al-Qaeda,
Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad, should be reminded that
administrations come and go and that these powers would
be wielded not only by President Bush but by his
successors.
Activists were in New
York for the annual Computers, Freedom and Privacy
conference ,by Dan Gilmore
The architecture of tomorrow is being embedded with the
tools of a surveillance society: ubiquitous cameras; the
creation and linking of all manner of databases; insecure
networks; and policies that invite abuse. They are being
put into place by an unholy, if loose, alliance of
government, private industry and just plain nosy regular
folks.
Under cover of a war that has
caused the media to ignore other important news, the Bush
administration issued an order that will guarantee the
wrongful arrests or harassment of innocent people. The
Justice Department told the FBI it no longer needed to
worry about the accuracy of its National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) database containing 39 million
criminal records, including some documents that would
barely pass the gossip hurdle.
NCIC records are used every day
by law enforcement agencies all over the nation. The
accuracy requirement was established under the 1974
Privacy Act, one purpose of which was to ensure that
federal records, which could have enormous impact on
people's lives if misused, don't contain erroneous
information. For more information, as well as an online
petition asking for a reversal of this misguided shift,
visit the Electronic Privacy Information Center Web site
(www.epic.org/actions/ncic/).
The Bush administration's
attitude, assisted by a Congress that long since
abandoned any commitment to liberty, is that government
has the right to know absolutely everything about you and
that government can violate your fundamental rights with
impunity as long as the cause is deemed worthy.
You, on the other hand, have
absolutely no right to know what the government is doing
in your name and with your money, unless the information
is deemed harmless by people who have every motive to
cover up misdeeds. Bush and his people have turned
secrecy into a mantra, and too few people recognize the
danger that poses to our freedoms, much less our
pocketbooks. The damage we will do to ourselves if we
allow our liberty to disappear is incalculable. An
entrepreneurial society can't exist if political freedom
disappears, and if Big Brothers, public and private, are
invading our daily existence with impunity.(http://www.dangillmor.com/).
|
