December 30, 2005

The Tapping of America,....

British, U.S. Spying
 
Draws Us Closer to Orwell's Big Brother
 
by T.J. Rodgers

 

My waking thought on Christmas Day was that George Orwell's vision of Big Brother was no longer a hypothetical possibility but an actual near-term threat. That realization was synthesized from two news events, one here and one in Britain.

In Britain, the government recently decided to deploy global positioning system (GPS) technology to track every vehicle in the U.K. every minute of the day. Just as GPS sensors are mandated for use in every cell phone in the near future in the United States (for our safety, of course), Britain will mandate the use of a GPS sensor in every car. ``Has Reginald White arrived at the grocery store yet?'' will become a question answerable by the security division of Britain's DMV.

The British government promises safeguards to prevent spying on ordinary citizens, but who will follow up on those promises?

In the United States, President Bush is acting under apparently self-granted powers to ``authorize'' the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans -- of course, only on Americans threatening terrorist acts.

In an act of high integrity, one of the judges of the secret court that grants Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act search warrants resigned, citing the fact that Bush was now bypassing even that minimal civil rights guarantee by directly authorizing NSA spying on U.S. citizens. One can only imagine that this troublesome judge will be replaced with one more friendly to the administration.

With only the need to combine two real-world technologies for spying and tracking, the vision of 1984 -- once just a dark philosophical concept -- becomes an engineering project.

The president and those to whom he delegates his authority can now authorize government spooks to listen to us in our homes and on our cell phones. When we are not home, they can track us in our automobiles. The system could be airtight and could be used to control our actions.

It's simple enough for most Silicon Valley companies to create a chip to detect a valid GPS signal and disable an automobile's ignition system to prevent citizens from the ``unauthorized use'' of their own vehicles.

The final move into the totality of 1984 requires only a bit of philosophical drift, as exemplified by J. Edgar Hoover's directive to spy on the Rev. Martin Luther King because he was a subversive. If Bush's latest acts are left unchallenged, the government will become bolder at spying on whomever it wants and secretly jailing those it deems a threat to national security -- all with no troublesome warrants or messy public trials.

In this environment, acts other than terrorism will certainly be put on the subversive activities list, all in the name of protecting our freedom.

Why should law-abiding citizens fear these trends? Because the government cannot be trusted. I don't trust President Bush to honor my rights, nor did I trust President Clinton, who was caught with secret FBI files on his political enemies.

It's not that I'm unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government -- either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That's why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government -- by demanding, for example, that ``Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.''

Our property is also protected from illegal search and seizure, and we are not to be put in jail without knowing the charges against us or having the right to confront our accusers in a public trial. Secret courts are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, the defining document of American freedom.

What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.

I would much rather live as a free man under the highly improbable threat of another significant Al-Qaida attack than I would as a serf, spied on by an oppressive government that can jail me secretly, without charges. If the Patriot Act defines the term ``patriot,'' then I am certainly not one.

By far, our own government is a bigger threat to our freedom than any possible menace posed by Al-Qaida.

 

T.J Rodgers is the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor in San Jose. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.

© San Jose Mercury News

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 06:18:08 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

December 29, 2005

The Peaceful Revolution,...

Impeachment

 March on State of the Union

 January 31, 2006

By : portlandindymedia
 

 

We The People remind Congress that they too took an oath to defend the Constitution, from both enemies foreign and domestic. 1. Call or Fax Congress and let them know, impeachment or else. 2. Organize State of the Union MOSH II protest, gather in DC to put the pressure on Congress the week before the SOTU. 3. Jan 31st, surround the capitol building, project truth videos to the riot cops, remind them that they too took an oath to defend the Constitution.

Bush attempting to become Dictator of America

Dictator: a ruler who is unconstrained by law

Bush is asking Congress to officially announce that he is indeed above the law- in effect crowning him America’s first dictator.

Spying on Americans without a warrant is expressly forbidden in the Constitution. Bush admitted to authorizing this unconstitutional act more than 30 times. This means Bush broke the law. There is no grey area here, Bush broke the law- period.

What’s worse is that Bush knows he was breaking the law, and then continued to lie about it at his press conference Dec 19th when he claimed that he had this authority under the Constitution- an outright lie to America on National TV.

During a series of campaign speeches in 2004, Bush talked about wiretaps and claimed that a court order was always used in cases of domestic spying. We know now that this was untrue- Bush deliberately lied to his supporters on the campaign trail.

To all Bush Supporters: he looked in your face and lied to you.

But more importantly, this video proof of Bush on the campaign trail proves that he knew it was against the law to spy on Americans without a warrant... And he did it anyway as he lied to his followers.

Bush also lied when he said they were only monitoring international phone calls. A leak to NY Times reporter exposed that in fact, the NSA had "tapped into the main arteries" of America’s telecommunications system. Supposedly looking for patterns of terrorist activity, they were monitoring all phone and email traffic in America.

Maybe they didn’t authorize rogue agents to use this tool to identify dissenters... But they opened the door for such abuse to take place. That is a High Crime worthy of Impeachment.

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it mention Censure in regards to a President. Nowhere. Censure is for Congress to shame one of it’s own, Impeachment is to be used in the case of a renegade President. Bush swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. He broke that oath in a very serious manner and he must be impeached, or the rule of law is dead.

Censure is also BUllSHit for this reason- the repubs will sign on, then claim that’s good enough, any calls for impeachment will be brushed aside as, "we already censured him." Censure is not good enough.

At this point, there is no need for an investigation. ZERO. All the evidence is in public. The President admitted to an impeachable offense on national TV.

If Congress does not hold Bush accountable, then they are telling the world that Bush is above the law- that he is dictator.

—  Plan of Action

We The People remind Congress that they too took an oath to defend the Constitution, from both enemies foreign and domestic. If they side with their buddy Bush, then they too are traitors and will be tried alongside Bush, Cheney & the Neocons when we finally arrest them.

1. Call or Fax Congress and let them know, impeachment or else.
2. Organize State of the Union MOSH II protest, gather in DC to put the pressure on Congress the week before the SOTU.
3. Jan 31st, surround the capitol building, project truth videos to the riot cops, remind them that they too took an oath to defend the Constitution.

One more thing... Just say no to candlelight vigils- it’s time to be loud and rockin’ - check out these two samples from the upcoming Public Enemy reunion with special guest Paris.

http://Benfrank.net/blog/ 

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/330921.shtml

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 10:38:03 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

December 25, 2005

Christmas comes but once a year,...

 

 

What Have We Learned?

 

by Monica Benderman

 

 

Christmas comes but once a year.  Why? 

 

Maybe it is a reminder. 

 

Churches are full on Christmas Eve.  So many pay homage – listening to the story of Christmas.  Year after year, children memorize the Christmas story, learn to point in the direction of the Star of Bethlehem, and surround a cradle full of hay to sing “Away in a Manger,” with hands folded sweetly to their chins. 

 

The children grow and remember Christmas past as they watch their own child’s hands wrapped gently around the flickering light of one candle as “Silent Night” is softly echoed in a darkened sanctuary. 

 

What have we learned? 

 

A baby was born long ago, in a manger full of hay.  His parents were not rich, but they loved each other and they loved their child.  He was a child of God, a gift. God knew this couple would love their child, and so He trusted them to raise him well.  This child grew, and lived his life the best he could.  He learned from great teachers, and he walked the earth because he lived at a time when there was little other form of conveyance for a man of meager means.  He loved, for he understood.  He taught what he had learned, to all who would listen.  He was a man of peace, for he knew that in the quiet of peace, the answers come.  He understood that not all men saw as he did, and he was patient.  He listened, and heard their fears, he watched them live and knew that if he could somehow show them not to be afraid, they, too, would find the peace he knew so well. 

 

Men followed him, for they wanted what he had.  Men revered him for the gifts he gave, and raised him to lofty heights for surely no man except a man of God could be so patient, so understanding, so kind, and so wise.  Men praised him, and wrote stories about him.  Before long, he was a hero.  Everywhere he traveled people knew his name, and glorified him, and as the story grew, so did the image, but the man remained the same.  He knew who he was.  Just a man. 

 

In time, he began to believe the stories, and he began to believe the power the stories gave through the idolatry of the men who followed him. When he needed it most, the peace he had felt, the patience that it offered, seemed to disappear and he too, became afraid.  But in the silence that nature and time alone can give, he found himself again and knew that what was in his heart had never left him – it was he who had chosen not to see. Humility returned as he remembered the gifts were only there as long as he realized in whose name they had been given.

 

Men feared him for the peace that surrounded him.  Powerful men wanted to destroy him, for those who followed him seemed strengthened in themselves, and would not blindly follow the leaders of the day.  The sins of man led to this man’s death.  Fear – because this man lived in peace, and those who followed him did so without being threatened, coerced or bought.  They followed him simply because he accepted them, walked with them, held their hand and listened – even when their differences were disfiguring, when they spoke in different languages, when they practiced different customs. 

 

Somewhere tonight a child will be born.  To his parents, this child will be a gift from God.  A demonstration of God’s trust in them to raise the child well, to teach him to live in peace and to raise him to walk among men with humility, patience and consideration for all. 

 

How is this child different than the one we honor in the manger?  He is no different.  He will have the same gifts given, and the same hopes shared.  He will begin his life in the same simple way that all children are. 

 

This child will be given teachers, he will have the opportunity to learn as he grows, and the chance to practice peace in his life. 

 

He will be influenced by his world.  Will it be a world of peace, a world where he can find the silence in which to learn to listen to his heart? 

 

Will it be a world that will allow him to understand what he is given, and how to use these gifts?  Will it be a world where he is accepted for who he is, someone who cares, who listens, who holds hands with those who are disfigured, who speak different languages, who practice different customs?

 

Will he learn the wisdom of moral courage when faced with threats from people who fear him?

 

If he does, will he be seen as an idol, someone to be revered and honored, someone elevated to such a standard that others will see him as a savior rather than just a man with enough faith in himself to live by his own beliefs?  Will people look at his actions, and his life and walk away, afraid of what he is and the standard that he sets?

 

Will he remain strong in his principles, and humbled by the life he has been given?

 

Or will he forget where his gifts came from, and let the love of power, money, and fame interfere with the peace in his heart, and cause him to forget who he really is?  Will his love of external trappings overshadow the real gifts, so that he becomes defensive and untrusting of anyone who does not think as he does?  Will he allow material gains to define him, so that he lives in fear of their loss unmasking the shallow illusion of a man?  Will he reach for security in the form of guns, chemical weapons, war; destroying anyone who threatens to reveal his weaknesses? 

 

Every child born is no different than the child in the manger.

 

 

 

What have we learned?

 

 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 09:40:54 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

December 21, 2005

9/11 - Still Seeking the Truth

Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress

 And the 9/11 Commission?

9/11: Missing Black Boxes

 in World Trade CenterAttacks

 Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB,

 Concealed by FBI

By DAVE LINDORFF

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to

the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center.

Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane's speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane's cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane's tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes' data, says, "It's very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it's also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings."

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. "To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them," says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. Government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation's "War on Terror" and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 23:08:43 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Bush is not above the law,...

Bush Must Be Held Accountable

George Bush Cannot Protect Democracy by Destroying It.
 

Every American should be outraged by the president's attempt to justify domestic spying. It's wrong, and the president should acknowledge that fact. He must be held accountable.

Congress should immediately launch a truly bipartisan investigation into the administration's spying campaign. If the Constitution and laws of the United States were broken, Congress should censure the president. And if the lies, the deceit and lawbreaking continue, Congress should take even more drastic action.

Either we are a nation of laws and moral values or we are not. We cannot pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to ignore for the sake of convenience or expediency.

George Bush is not above the law.

This is a military community, with thousands of active duty and retired members of the armed forces among our friends and neighbors. The presidents' actions undermine their service to this nation.

The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for true democracy, not a democracy that condones domestic spying, or secret prisons or subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has played right into the hands of ter-rorists and diminished the reputation of the fine men and women who wear this nation's uniforms.

President Bush is the one sending the wrong message to our soldiers and our enemies. Under his leadership, we are becoming known as a nation of hypocrites.

Lies and exaggerations

President Bush has built an administration founded on lies and exaggerations and fear. And he has gotten away with it. It's unconscionable.

President Bush promised to take action against any White House official leaking classified information. Yet Karl Rove remains.

When CIA director George Tenet said weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a “slam dunk,” he was dead wrong. How was he punished? He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

George Bush says the United States does not torture, yet his administration fought tooth and nail against an ex-plicit ban on torture. Abu Ghraib was an exception, we were told. But then we learned there were secret prisons abroad where who knows what goes on.

The president excoriated congressmen Monday for not blindly passing the overbroad USA Patriot Act because they didn't trust that there were adequate safeguards against abuses. Ironically, that happened at the same time as President Bush promised to continue the illegal wiretaps. He seemed to be saying, “Trust me.”

Well, Mr. President, we are sorry to say that we don't trust you or your administration because you have abused that trust so often in the past.

Big Brother

His effort this week to turn around his abysmal poll numbers should fall on deaf ears. The American public knows that domestic spying is something out of George Orwell's “1984.” Yet George Bush has made that “Big Brother” fantasy a reality.

Attempting to justify the indefensible, the president on Monday said he would continue the program of moni-toring phone calls and e-mails “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens” and added that it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.

Baloney!

The president could have gone to Congress and asked for permission to spy on citizens in the United States. The Republican-controlled Congress would have given the president permission in a heartbeat. Or he could use exist-ing wiretap laws that allow a court order 72 hours after the taping has begun. That way, our vital system of checks and balances would have been preserved.

In his arrogance, President Bush did not go to Congress or to the courts for permission (although he claims that he did tell select members of Congress what he was doing — as if that is enough). He sees himself above the law. As commander in chief, he believes he is not bound by the Constitution and its guarantees of civil liberties. In his view, the warrantless spying conducted by the National Security Agency under his direction is an essential ele-ment in the war against terrorists. In that belief he has lowered himself to their level. And there is a disturbing pattern to his behavior.

It's OK to lie about the reasons to go to war.

It's OK to hold hundreds, maybe thousands of prisoners without charges, without legal representation and for an indefinite period of time,

It's OK to have secret prisons.

It's OK to say the provisions of the Geneva Convention don't apply in a war on terror.

It's OK to treat detainees inhumanely, because we can define them as we see fit.

It's OK to use the Patriot Act to pry into library records and lord knows what else.

It's OK, as NBC News reported, for the Pentagon to spy on peace activists.

It's OK to trample on the rights of citizens.

Unchecked powers

At Monday's news conference, President Bush angrily denied that he is using unchecked or dictatorial pow-ers. But how else can you characterize his behavior? What tyrant hasn't claimed the need to use extra legal pow-ers to protect the motherland or fatherland from some threat? How much Orwellian doublespeak can this coun-try tolerate?

Congress impeached former President Clinton for lying about consensual sex with a White House intern.

No one died. No prisoners were tortured. Clinton simply tarnished his own reputation and sullied the stature of the Oval Office.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue, a Democrat or Republican issue. It's an issue of fundamental civil rights.

We repeat: Congress must muster the courage to hold this president accountable. A bipartisan commission investigation is warranted. And if the lies and deceit continue, Congress should consider the ultimate step and impeach President George Bush. It's all about accountability and protecting, not destroying, democracy.

©2005 Knight Ridder

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 08:49:14 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

December 18, 2005

Patriot Act On Hold,...

 

Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act
 
by Jesse J. Holland
 
How Did Your Senators Vote?
Roll Call 358 : Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference to Accompany H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (40 votes required to defeat cloture)

Yea 52

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

 

Nay 47

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)*
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
* Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time.
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent.

They also supported new safeguards and expiration dates to the act's two most controversial parts: authorization for roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor multiple devices to keep a target from evading detection by switching phones or computers; and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig and other critics said those efforts weren't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31. Investigators will still be able to use those powers to complete any investigation that began before the expiration date, according to a provision in the original law.

Five Republicans voted against the reauthorization: Chuch Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Craig and Frist. Two Democrats voted to extend the provisions: Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."

Most of the Patriot Act — which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers — was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.

The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the expiring portions of the Patriot Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. Its Senate supporters say that compromise is the only thing that has a chance to pass Congress before 2006.

"This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making the expiring provisions permanent.

"Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began.

"Today, fair-minded senators stood firm in their commitment to the Constitution and rejected the White House's call to pass a faulty law," said Caroline Fredrickson, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office. "This was a victory for the privacy and liberty of all Americans."

On the Net:
Justice Department's Web site on the USA Patriot Act: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
ACLU's Patriot Act Web site: http://www.aclu.org/safefree

Copyright © 2005 Associated Press

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 23:34:51 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

December 11, 2005

Truth Be Told

SGT. KEVIN BENDERMAN
AMERICA'S NEW GENERATION OF LEADERSHIP
 
AMERICA'S VETERANS
 
RENEWAL OF THE PATRIOT ACT
 
A SAD DAY FOR AMERICA
 
 
BY SGT. KEVIN BENDERMAN
 
 
The federal government has renewed the USA Patriot Act, and I personally believe that it is a sad day for America.  The Act purports to make us safe from terrorists.  But if we are fighting in the Middle East to keep them from coming here, why are we subjecting our own citizens to such police state tactics? 
 
 I think this act is designed to control Americans, to keep us from gaining any sense of organization and cooperation among ourselves.  If we are suspicious of one another, then we are not paying attention to what some politicians are doing that is unethical or blatantly illegal. 
 
Have we become such a nation of whiny, helpless drug-ridden zombies that we are always looking for Big Brother to save us at the expense of our freedom and liberty?  Patrick Henry, a genuine USA Patriot said "Give me liberty or give me death."  Are we, as modern Americans, going to continue that call for Liberty, or are we going to pop a couple more Valiums and crawl back into bed? 
 
I see little ribbons and signs everywhere saying "We Support Our Troops."  I think real support for our troops is for our citizens to bring some of the same amount of dedication to defending our constitution through actions and not words, just as our soldiers have.  Americans are going to have to stop expecting drugs and government to solve all of our problems. 
 
Soldiers are going to need help from all citizens in defending our constitution, as defending it requires much more than just going to war in some far off land.  It requires each and every one of us to first make sure that we have a good understanding of it, and then actively ensuring that the ideals of it are implemented into our everyday lives.  
 
I don't think trying to escape from reality while we expect someone else to do all of our work for us is supporting our constitution or our troops. 
 
I know that through our history, there have been some dark moments, but where has the attitude of "I am going to stand on my own to get what I need" gone?  Has all the Ritalin, Valium and Prozac totally destroyed it?  I sincerely hope it hasn't, for the sake of our future generations. 
 
I will leave you with this quote from another genuine USA Patriot, Benjamin Franklin, "Those of us who give up Liberty, for temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." 
 
 
 
 

Please visit the Benderman’s websites at www.BendermanDefense.org

 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 23:15:22 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

December 02, 2005

Two Questions for You,...

 

Did George Lie Us Into A War of Aggression

 

Or IS He Really Stupid?

 

 

Nolan K. Anderson

 I recently read an article by a well-known writer in which he examined our title question.  His article was based on one of Faux Snooze's "news" presenters - John Gibson's opinion on the subject.  Being a Faux employee Gibson could hardly be expected to present anything resembling a coherent, objective analysis of any question - let alone one examining George Bush's motives.  The gist of Gibson's "news analysis" was that George Bush could not possibly have lied us into war by claiming that Sadaam possessed WMD.  Gibson argued that Bush would hardly send 150,000 US troops into Iraq to discover the fact that Sadaam had no WMD's and therefore Bush had been lying.  The opposing point of view was that Bush had certainly lied when he claimed as a certainty that Sadaam really did have these weapons when George was really only theoretically quoting the conclusions drawn by his intelligence services.

My opinion is that neither of these points of view represents a clear picture of the fact that George was sure Sadaam possessed no WMD.  We were all led to believe that Sadaam even had aerial drones capable of attacking the US with chemical and biological weapons.  With this in mind, what kind of military geniuses would have amassed an invasion force on the Kuwaiti border as an open invitation to annihilation if they knew chemical or biological weapons could be used with devastating effect against them?  Granted, George didn't direct the operation; however, a Pentagon that would knowingly place its invasion forces in the path of Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" doesn't offer much of a security blanket to the citizens of this country either.  No, I give our military credit for having more sense than committing such a blunder.  Other pundits like Pat Buchanan argue that Sadaam wouldn't have dared to unleash biological or nuclear weapons for fear that the US would wipe him out.  Well, what does he think "Shock and Awe" did?  What does he think we have been trying to do for two years?  Does Buchanan think Falluja is a monument to self-restraint?

Do these points alter anything?  The answer is, "No".  Today almost 60 percent of Americans now believe George has deceived Congress and the American people concerning the reasons for invading Iraq.  (Deceiving Congress certainly requires no skill - lobbyists do it every day).   George and Cheney will never admit to having deceived America concerning Iraq - short of a short stay as a guest of honor in one of George's "non torturing" extraordinary rendition cells.  So, what is the point?

The point of these observations is this: "What can we as a country do, and what can we as individuals do to rectify the sins our elected officials have visited upon Iraq and the world community in our names"?  Corruption in government is neither new nor unique to either our times or our country.  In fact, the universal spelling of government is: "C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N".  It is also a truism that governments can be no better than their people.  If this truism insults the sensibilities of Americans, perhaps we can console ourselves by observing that the pressures for integrity in American government are such that "finding good, honest people to serve in the government is extremely difficult".  (We can certainly see how true that is by looking at our last six or seven presidents.  Each one was worse than his predecessor).  So if these conclusions are considered to be in any way true, the only variable that we citizens have available to alter is - ourselves. 

Polls show today that 50 percent of Americans favor torturing prisoners.  If this figure is by any means correct, how can we expect our government to do anything but continue to condone and advocate torture out of one side of its mouth and deny using torture out of the other side of its mouth? This type of moral selectivity allows a perfectly balanced government response to this and any other question.

Another question to ask of ourselves is, "Who are 'we' Americans?  Pundits tell us that George represents a theocracy of the "Religious Right".  So which half of "we" Americans are advocating the torture of prisoners - the "Right" half or the "Left" half?  My, my, what a question to ask the preacher on Sunday morning.  "Pastor, does our church condone and/or advocate torturing prisoners"?  What a question to ask in the secular workplace.  "Boss, do we accept our government's torturing prisoners - just because we are a defense contractor"?

And, oh yes, which prisoners are we talking about when we either condone or condemn torture?  Are we talking about Arab prisoners or just al Qaeda prisoners, or are they one and the same?  Are we talking about any prisoners, or are talking about all prisoners?  Are we talking about American military personnel in military prisons?  The more we refine and define our questions, the easier it becomes to give an answer.  How about military prisoners who have requested Conscientious Objector status after having completed a tour in Iraq?  Should they be tortured?

I don't know whether our consensus is still 50-50.  But, I know that I do not agree with torturing ANY prisoner - especially those in the Kevin Benderman category.  Anyone who has completed a tour in Iraq and come back and requested CO status has a right to a fair hearing on the request - not being sentenced on some other charge to serve in a hell-hole military stockade not fit for human habitation.

For those who want to support Kevin Benderman and force the military to use humane treatment of military prisoners, add your voice and your letters to those writing and calling their congressmen about the outrageous living conditions in the military stockade at Ft. Lewis, Washington.  After all, the effort required is small enough and really is the very least we Americans can do to redeem ourselves in our own eyes - and maybe even a portion of the world's eyes.

 Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea

who was once a “conservative” until he found there was nothing left to conserve.

(He may be reached at nkanders@bellsouth.net ) 

 

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 17:10:09 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |