Hi guys Interesting and spirited discussion you all have been having today!
Jwhop, you said,

In reply to:

---

Strange isn't it that those who say they are in favor of free speech attempt to muzzle those who say things they don't agree with, regardless of the absolute truth and documented source of the statement

---

Sorry - I didn't realize you were in possession of the "absolute truth". We should make sure everyone knows that, and then we can all just listen to everything you say and not have to worry about thinking for ourselves about things anymore. Wow - you've saved me so much effort!!! Thanks a bunch!

Love,
Terri

Greg,

Why isn't this Poindexter guy in jail?!? I very very vaugely remember his name from all that Iran-contra stuff, but I was about 13 or so when all that was happening, so I know little more than the bare bones of the story. But from how you descibed him in your post above, convited of lying in federal court etc., how can he NOT be in jail? And I also thought that a convicted felon in the USA wasn't allowed to vote? If that's true, than how can he be allowed to head up such an important committee? And that stuff about the pyramid witht the eye and 'Knowledge is Power' in his office?!?!? I'm sorry - but when the Toronto talk radio host who does this 'conspiracy-theory for the totally paranoid' radio show every week gets a hold of that nugget of wisdom, he's gonna devote at least an hour to all the possible Illuminati/Masonic conspiracy connections one could extrapolate from that! I should email this thread to him....

Love,
Terri

Hi Terri,

He's not in jail because his conviction was later nullified by an appellate court over an immunity agreement with the prosecution. At some point in the congressional investigation he was offered immunity from any further charges in exchange for testimony about other conspirators. On appeal, he successfully argued that the immunity should also apply to testimony given prior to the immunity agreement. That's a shame as far as it goes, but it has nothing to do with his culpability for the crimes he was convicted of, which he freely admitted.

There are some who consider him a "hero" for taking the blame for this criminal black operation that would otherwise have found its way to Reagan ... and I imagine we will hear some defend him on the theory that he was not "really" guilty but was just taking the fall for his Commander-in-Chief."

Love,
Greg

In reply to
_____________________
Everyone
_____________________
Conspiracy Zone is on tonight @ 7:30 PST on TNN...I dont know the topic, but its always good, with some satirical humour thrown in by the host.

Well Greg

You do have a habit of trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

You said:
"I will give you credit for admitting that there are parts of the act that are unconstitutional - which you vehemently denied in your reply to WriteOn."

But that isn't what I said to WriteOn, this is what I said:
"Specifically, which section of the Homeland Security Act subjects citizen to the following that are not already a part of the pubic records? Or is it your objection that all the information would be available in one place, file or computer system?"

With all the talk about the Homeland Security bill before Congress, I assumed you had all read it before condemning it. So I requested information on specifics. When it wasn't forthcoming, I looked it up myself.

When I said the Homeland Security Act has nothing to do with free speech at Concordia University that was an absolutely true statement but you attempted to chide me into broadening my outlook to include free speech everywhere. I don't remember ever speaking out against free speech anywhere but it's the student radicals at Concordia that are attempting to limit free speech. When the former Prime Minister of Israel was scheduled to speak, those radicals had themselves a nice little riot and damaged the University's property forcing the cancellation of his appearance there. Their complaints about the University shutting down their use of the University property for one of their chosen speakers is the ultimate hypocrisy. Why are you buying into it? Why would anyone who values free speech?

Today, I posted a story from the press with another threat attributed to Al Qaeda. Immediately, you passed it off as "throwing out the hate and fear statements" and said "that's a great contribution to world peace and understanding. Dig a little deeper, I'm sure you can find some even more loathesome stuff that Al Quaeda has said, this is kid stuff"

The statement I posted is again, absolutely true as it was reported. My purpose was to show the totally unreasonable positions the terrorists have adopted but you seem to think highlighting the futility of trying to reason with them is a bigger problem than their unreasonable positions. I don't.

So, just for the record, no one is going to define the range of thought or ideas I can have or express about any issue or subject, within the limits of normal conversational good manners, of course.

Well, of course you could delete my posts to shut me up But you're not that kind of man Greg.

Now as to why the Administration put stuff in the Homeland Security bill that may be unconstitutional? That bill was written and passed by the House.

jwhop

Hi jwhop,

I owe you an apology on a couple of counts. It is true that you did not vehemently deny there are parts of the Homeland Security act that are unconstitutional. You have denied that other acts and actions of the administration have any unconstitutional elements, and you have said that you strongly support the constitution, and you challenged Maria to define what parts of the act violated existing privacy protections ... I put all those things together and jumped to the conclusion that you were claiming the act was entirely constitutional, but you're right, you did not say that. My apologies.

With regard to the college incident, to be honest I have not followed the incident itself, my only knowledge of it is what I've read here ... so I can't really say whether I support or approve of these students' actions or not. If, as you say, they are attempting to shut down the speakers they do not like while arguing for their own free speech rights to present a viwpoint they wish to promote, then that is indeed hypocrisy. What I DO take issue with is your assertion that the University is within its rights to determine what ideas should be allowed to be presented on its property. If free speech and the right of all ideas to be heard has any meaning anywhere in our culture, then it must certainly be upheld at our universities.

As for your repetition of Al Quaeda's irrational demands, of course you are within your rights to call it to our attention. I wasn't trying to limit that, I was expressing my frustration that so much of the energy being expressed over all of these issues is "us and them" energy ... and while not denying that there are indeed some radical elements that are demonstrably quite impossible to reason with, I do earnestly believe that the vast majority of the people - human beings who live within the cultures that those crazed killers claim to represent - are ordinary human beings like you and me, who only want some peace and dignity for themselves, and the ability to see their children grow up with some hope in their lives without hunger or bombs or homelessness looming around every corner. And I believe that some major part of our efforts to secure a peaceful world for all of us MUST include that recognition, and some interest in knowing what their hopes and fears are, and some thoughtful creative compassionate energy put into trying to help alleviate their fears and suffering -- some of which might even be due to actions that have been taken by military and economic interests acting in OUR name!

It's not a black-and-white world. I am not responsible for the murder of children in South America who were killed by death squads supported by CIA guns and dollars. The grieving mother in Palestine whose daughter has been shot down for being in the wrong place at the wrong time while trying to get food for the family is not responsible for Bin Laden's mass murders. The Israeli schoolgirl who is blown to bits while on her way to third grade class with an apple in her lunchbox for her teacher is not reponsible for the Deir Yassin massacre. But when ALL of our communication about our "enemies" cultures is focused on the blackest deeds of their most militant and intransigent members, it creates a culture of hate that completely negates the possibility of mutual understanding and reconciliation. Instead of human beings we have Damned Palestinians, Damned Americans, Damned Israelis, and that's all we can have because that's all we hear about, and thoughts are things. What we continually hear about, talk about, think about does become the reality we create and experience. If there is no room for compassion in our speech and rhetoric, then there is literally no hope for a world in which compassion plays a significant part.

And the bottom line is, that IS the only way that peace will ever come to be. PEACE CANNOT BE CREATED AT THE POINT OF A GUN OR WITH THE BLAST OF A BOMB. Yes, massive armed force can create "compliance" ... and can quell violence and rebellion for a limited time in a limited space ... but unless the underlying issues are resolved it will ALWAYS erupt again. Always, always, always. If there is ANYTHING history has taught us, it is that. If anyone now believes that permanent peace in the world can be achieved through military might, that is a hopelessly naive belief. That has never happened in the history of the world, and it never will happen.

Yes, there are times when that armed force is NECESSARY to create the space in which the issues CAN be resolved and genuine peace created ... but the resolution of the issues and the creation of peace requires a mindset that includes compassion and the desire for mutual understanding ... qualities that WE WILL NOT POSSESS if ALL of our mental energy is directed at demonizing the enemy and seeing the issues in two-dimensional terms.

I'm not trying to shut you up jwhop. But I absolutely AM stating my own strong viewpoint that a continuous focus on demonizing the enemy and creating a relentlessly "us and them" picture of the world in which cultures are characterized exclusively in terms of the worst actions and statements of their most violent and aggressive representatives does not serve the cause of world peace in any way. Nor does it serve any of the purposes for which this website was founded, namely the spiritual and metaphysical ideals expressed by Linda Goodman. Central to those ideas is the vision of world peace brought about through spiritual growth, compassion, and love. Certainly that includes a respect and tolerance for all points of view, but it truly is NOT the proper venue for stridently focusing on an "us and them" worldview and a primary reliance on physical force as a viable solution to the world's problems.

Again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions about a couple of things you said. Not to excuse myself but this is what happens when discussions become contentious and start focusing on "sides" more than mutual effort to find common solutions ... the reptile brain kicks in, and making points and winning arguments becomes more important than clearly understanding what the other is saying, and I'm certainly as human as anyone in that respect! But that's not where I want to be, and I hope it isn't where you want to be, either.

Love,
Greg

PS - Oh, BTW the Homeland Security act wasn't "written and passed by the House." It was written by the administration's Homeland Security team, and the version that finally passed the House was the result of the various compromises and concessions made to secure enough votes for passage.

Hi, Peggy -

Gosh, you're polite! Have to reply to you. I don't feel very well informed about Poindexter; I'm going to have to do a bit of research.

I can tell you why a national database appeals to me. It is my understanding that this list is merely a consolidation of many different agencies' lists of criminals/suspected criminals. It is not about adding new names as much as centralizing the information. I don't think citizens like ourselves are going to be included on this list. Another words, if you have something to hide you might get a little paranoid. Otherwise, you have nothing to worry about.

Here is a perfect example: Remember the sniper case in DC? Well, Muhammed had previously killed in Alabama, Louisiana, and maybe Arizona. If there had been coordination and shared information in a national database -between the states, finger prints and ballastic evidence would have been available. 17 murders might have been prevented. See?

Here is another example: Before 9/11, there was suspected terror activity in Florida, Minnesota, and Michigan. There was absolutely no coordination between the FBI, CIA, or the INS (Immigration). In the case of Immigration, they probably have so many expired Visas that they couldn't possibly check out every case (at least in a timely fashion). With shared information, red flag cases could be investigated. In the past, there was no clear direction of responsibility. Again, maybe shared information would have prevented 9/11.

The Homeland Security Bill hasn't passed yet. Sounds like it will. Maybe we should wait until it is up and running and has the kinks worked out before we start passing judgment. To me, it seems like a step in the right direction.

Love,
Joyce

Thanks for clarifying the bill hasnt err, quite totally passed yet Joyce.

There is truth and untruths in everything wordly
Keep in mind we are being told what "they" want us to hear. We have been spoonfed stories such as child abductions, ( between the lines it reads.."a child identity system is needed! ) ..and stories such as the sniper case (yep, a national data base would of made sure it wouldnt have gotten that far with more murders!), and on and on.

You plead a WONDERFUL case for the masses Joyce..and one rightfully so, in all honesty.

Everything is reflecting "the war on terrorism."

I recently paid my house insurance..the rate only rose 10 percent because of a "terrorist attack"...but commercial properties rates went up here 20 percent, and the owner of the insurance co. I deal with told me its going up another 25 percent for them next year. I mention this only as its one example of whats going on around us.
As this escalates, will our governments be the ones to feed the masses as they starve due to fathers and mothers inablitles to keep up with the bills,as they lose their jobs due to the dominoe affect of 9/11,etc.
I read in a paper yesterday how approx 800,000 government workers in the USA are about to get axed by B***.

Watch the whole picture..Be careful out there!!
Look thru the forest to see the trees.
The NWO with its beastly identity mark around the corner. Very sad and unfortunate, that it will be an us/them issue worse than it is now. Them,being the ones who hold all the power in the end.

Thank you for answering Joy,

I will now think about what you said. Believe me I DO understand how things get royally screwed up when different agencies don't communicate.

And I need to listen to the "talking" heads on the News,again too because I thought they said this database would keep a file on EVERY American. That just feels "bad" to me.

Like a credit report or something...how do we know if what they put in there is all correct.

Again, thank you for answering.
Some day I'd love to "talk" unions with you but I'm in a big hurry today!!
Soon, ok??

Aries

I never thought I'd see the day where I disagreed with YOU here but it must be a sign o'the times, cause you said:

In reply to:

---

Them,being the ones who hold all the power in the end.

---

And I have to ask you to rethink those words! 'They' might have power over taxes, employment, laws etc...but they haven't any REAL power over me - not the me-of-me anyway
And the same goes for everyone! That's not to deny that all of this physical-realm power and control sturggle isn't important and isn't worth fighting for, just that at the end of the day, it's all a dream anyway....

Love,
Terri

hehe Terri..well, if you got my lengthy email earlier, you'll know what happens to the ego powers in the "end"..but I didnt want to go into all that here. (maybe you didnt get that email about everything going on in this province??)

Anyway, Im heading out to do some business with those who hold the powers..at least for now!
Im not one to sit around and take it, nor are the 2 aquarian friends and co-workers Im about to pre-meet with, before the meeting with the central powers..harhar

Well said, Terri. In the end, the long-term consequences of everything we encounter on the physical plane consist of the soul growth (or lack thereof) that we create by our responses, no more or less.

And even here on Earth, no one can have any ultimate "authority" over us no matter what we're subjected to. In the final analysis, no one can force you to do anything but die, and you're going to do that anyway sooner or later!

Heh, heh, probably the only place where Ayn Rand and the early Christian martyrs agree: you can't force a mind.

Joyce and Peggy, that information about the proposed Homeland Security super-database applying only to criminal records and criminal investigations is actually in error. It applies to far more than that, and touches everyone. For a good overview of what it actually covers, see the article by William Safire that Maria posted (the first message on this thread), which actually summarizes it pretty well.

Love,
Greg

Hello Greg

Issues of war and peace, politics, left, right and center, civil liberties, etc., push most peoples hot buttons, in one way or the other. No need to apologize Greg, I know you're a fair minded man with a strong belief system. But thank you just the same.

Concordia University came about by merger of Loyola College, a former Jesuit school and Sir George Williams University, an educational arm of the YMCA.

The University has the right to limit certain types of activities on it's campus and especially in light of this incident recorded on the Concordia website:
http://www.concordia.ca/about/history/sgw5.shtml

That there is an attempt to limit speech by those they disagree with is not in doubt. This is the story posted to this forum by Aries. I didn't write it or change a word. This is the excerpt that caught my attention:

"Concordia's board of governors implemented the ban in September after a violent protest prevented former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu from delivering a speech on campus."

This is temporary ban or "moratorium on public events related to the Middle East conflict." and on the campus of Concordia University. There is nothing banning any speech amongst students or between students and teachers or any other speech. The moratorium is against public meetings on campus where the subject matter is the Middle East conflict.

Regarding your comment about the Bush team writing the Homeland Security Act; this is an excerpt from CBS Face the Nation by Senator Christopher Dodd:

''The bill the president supported was 35 pages long. The bill that I've been asked to vote on Monday or Tuesday is 484 pages long, filled with special interest legislation, loaded up by the House Republicans in the last few days,'' Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said Sunday on CBS' ''Face the Nation.''

Would you care to revisit the issue of who wrote the Homeland Security Act?

You said:
"I'm not trying to shut you up jwhop. But I absolutely AM stating my own strong viewpoint that a continuous focus on demonizing the enemy and creating a relentlessly "us and them" picture of the world in which cultures are characterized exclusively in terms of the worst actions and statements of their most violent and aggressive representatives does not serve the cause of world peace in any way. Nor does it serve any of the purposes for which this website was founded, namely the spiritual and metaphysical ideals expressed by Linda Goodman. Central to those ideas is the vision of world peace brought about through spiritual growth, compassion, and love. Certainly that includes a respect and tolerance for all points of view, but it truly is NOT the proper venue for stridently focusing on an "us and them" worldview and a primary reliance on physical force as a viable solution to the world's problems."

OK, I can buy into that but you do realize there is another side in these discussions which treats the US as the enemy, declares the President to be the Anti Christ and declares him to be the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein----don't you?

And you are aware, are you not that it's the United States who has, over numerous Administrations attempted to negotiate a peace in the Middle East, A United States who has pushed for a Palestinian State, A United States who has promised aid and funding for the infrastructure of that same Palestinian State. Never a word about that on this site Greg, but you are aware of the truth of these statements, aren't you?

jwhop

Hi Joyce,

These posts on this particular thread right here are MY FIRST POSTS EVER regarding the Homeland Security bill, and I DID ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, and this stuff is not just stuff that other investigative agencies have in their files UNLESS THEY'VE BEEN BREAKING THE LAW, and this stuff IS NOT PUBLIC RECORD OR PUBLIC INFORMATION, and William Safire would not write about "300 million Americans" in the New York Times unless he, and his researchers working for him, and the copy editors and fact checkers who check his column for the New York Times all were clear that it does indeed apply to 300 million Americans -- that's ALL of us including people like you, in other words. And you and JWHOP have both totally ignored that information. And you, Joyce, are posting disinformation to Peggy.

I thought you were the one concerned about being fair and accurate. I guess I don't think that anymore.

Maria

Peggy,

They are talking about every American. You are correct. Joyce is the talking head at this point passing the inaccurate information.

Thanks.

Maria

Hi WriteOn

I'm sorry to not have responded to you much earlier and you're right, we shouldn't fight nor do I wish to.

I've had a difficult time trying to correlate the different bits and pieces of the Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act and the articles some have mentioned as you did that are alarming many about linking or downloading information from a wide array of private, institutional and semi private information databases.

There are a large number of Federal databases that have information about many citizens. For instance, truck drivers have a DOT permit, students with Federal student loans, Welfare recipients, Social Security records, IRS tax returns and audits and God the list is endless. At this point, these databases are considered private information and protected in that the information given by citizens may only be used for the purpose for which it was given--generally--absent a court order pursuant to the 4th Amendment requirements.

The Homeland Security Act requests and encourages states, individuals and institutions to voluntarily share information about citizens and others with the Homeland Security Dept. but doesn't require it-----a compulsory compliance notice issued to these groups would very definitely violate the 4th Amendment because as a blanket requirement for information about all people in the database, it would lack the specificity required by the 4th Amendment. So it would have to be voluntary.

Now, we come to the really interesting part and I think this is what Wm. Safire was talking about in his article. It's called the Office of Information Awareness and the system is called "Total Information Awareness". This is a Defense Dept project run out of the Pentagon under the auspices of DARPA. This system does not exist, it's in the research and development stage and it's a five year project. The computers do not exist to do the job, at least as I understand it. There are questions as to whether it can even be done. There are or have been hearings for the appropriation of $200,000,000 over a 5 year span to fund the R&D. It's definitely on the Pentagon wish list but it's part of a larger overall plan to mine information from all over the world.

This is what was confusing about what I've been hearing and reading. The Democrats, the supposed defenders of the faith in the area of Civil Rights haven't uttered a peep about the civil rights aspects of the Homeland Security Act. Rather they complained about the labor issue aspects. I haven't seen or heard a peep from the ACLU either (could have missed it though) What I did find on the ACLU website is information about the Office of Information Awareness but the Homeland Security Bill wasn't mentioned or linked to that information.
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11323&c=130

I have not seen any references that would indicate this system would be part of the Homeland Security Dept. Further, there are some real questions regarding the legality of using military equipment and personnel against US citizens and this is a Pentagon operation.

Perhaps, you could mine your news sources for more information because as I see it, we're talking about this as though it's all part of the same Bill and I'm beginning to think it isn't.

Now, I would like you to consider that because of the confusing swirl of information on the subject, you may have been a little harsh in your assessment of Joyce's position on the Homeland Security Bill which may not after all be directed at the 300 million Americans Wm Safire mentioned in his column.

And by the way, I use public records databases every day. There are many such city, county and state databases storing information about citizens that anyone can access. I'm in several of the State of FL databases as well as the Pinellas County database that anyone can access. Further, you and everyone else who uses the Internet and browses different sites or buys online is being profiled and you get the junk mail to prove it. Your bank and I believe credit reporting agencies are selling your information to financial institutions, mail order or special offer companies as well. I get their junk mail at home.

jwhop

Hi all,

Yes jwhop, credit reporting agencies are selling your information to financial institutions. All three of them: Equifax, Experian and Trans Union Corporation's. Anybody ever wonder why they get so many credit card offers in the mail. I get an average of ten a week. Instead of just throwing them away, make sure you tear them up also. Anybody can grab them from your trash and apply for credit using your name. By the way, if anybody wants these three credit bureaus to stop selling your information, here is how: Sharing Your Personal Information It's Your Choice

When you get to the web page, click on the Credit Bureau link. You can either call toll free or use the Sample Opt-Out Letter.

Also, a recent amendment to the law now prohibits a DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) from distributing your personal information for other types of uses, including for direct marketing, unless you give them permission.

Speaking of Poindexter, how did this guy get to be in the position he is in now even though his conviction was later nullified? Wasn't there any protests by anyone in congress, etc.

The person that really scares me is Attorney General Ashcroft . He is the one I am focusing my attention on regarding my civil rights.


Sabra

Wow, did this discussion stay lively!

Sabra, yes Ashcroft is a scary dude, but if you really look closely at the whole "team" working on Homeland Security and related initiatives, there are quite a number of scary dudes in there who definitely think civil rights are a troublesome annoyance.

jwhop, yes, I do know that America has done FAR more good in the world than otherwise, and continues to do so. The fact that I am VERY concerned about some 'interests' within the federal power structure that have gained an inordinate amount of power and used it for corrupt purposes - both here and abroad - and seem clearly bent on expanding that power as far as possible, does not mean that I don't love my country and believe in it. I do, passionately, and if called on to defend it would do so with my life.

The authority for Poindexter's Total Information Awareness project is contained in SEC. 201. DIRECTORATE FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION of the Homeland Security act. You are correct that it does not explicitly name the DARPA project or fund it (no doubt because of the stink that would raise, as well as the constitutional vulnerabilities. Rather it DESCRIBES the project in broad terms and authorizes funding for the department to hire "a" director, and to retain "private contractors" to develop the technology. It is generally acknowledged that the section is intended to empower Poindexter's TIA project ... there are no other projects or proposals that remotely resemble what is called for in the act, and that one does to a "T." It will be very easy to sidestep, as you aptly put it, the "real questions regarding the legality of using military equipment and personnel against US citizens," simply by retaining the same "private contractors" (Booze Allen Hamilton) who are presently developing the concept under DARPA and Poindexter, and make it a Homeland Security project rather than a Defense project!

BTW if you want to see the full scary scope of this plan, here's the official DARPA project description: Total Information Awareness Project. In a nutshell, it aims to compile not only an exhaustive dossier on every individual, but to have that correlated, analyzed and updated live in real time (including video surveillance images) such that not only is everything about your history known, but your current location and movements can be instantly ascertained and tracked!

Of course, the system would NEVER be used to track anyone except terrorists - we have Poindexter's word on that!

Since you mention internet monitoring (and profiling, which is currently being challenged as a serious privacy breach), there is another provision in the Homeland Security Act that has been overshadowed by the frightening import of the database project and the sidestepping of the Freedom of Information Act, but is bad enough in itself, contained in the Computer Security Enhancement sectionthat would allow the agency to obtain ISP records of all activity without either warrant or notification (in plainer words to hack into ISP's computers and get what they want, if they are able, or to demand it from them without a warrant if not).

In reply to:

---

"The bill the president supported was 35 pages long. The bill that I've been asked to vote on Monday or Tuesday is 484 pages long, filled with special interest legislation, loaded up by the House Republicans in the last few days,'' Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said Sunday on CBS' ''Face the Nation.''

Would you care to revisit the issue of who wrote the Homeland Security Act?

---

Heh, heh, ain't it the truth? Everybody and his uncle figured this bill was guaranteed to pass on a tight time frame, so they threw in their own special projects and pork barrel programs to ride along. These included a section granting pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability suits from vaccines, a university research grant with requirements that only Texas A&M could meet ( !) and literally dozens of others having nothing whatsoever to do with Homeland Security. What a system! However, the basic core provisions provided to the House by the Administration (including all of the Civil Rights questionable provisions we've discussed here) did not really change that much, as you can see in the INCOMING and FINAL versions of the bill.

Jeez, I'm tired of talking about this bill, it's depressing! I'm going to bed, see y'all in the morning.

Some of this reminds me of the Senator Joseph McCarthy hearings and his witch hunts of the 1950's (before my time ).

He created the "Red Scare" of that era. At the time a lot of famous actors, writers, playwrights and many others were blacklisted (or worse) in the United States because they were accused of being communists. A very sad time in American history.

Sabra

jwhop and Gregory,

I'm glad you're both doing the deep digging. Really, I very much appreciate the efforts to get as close to source as possible. As a person who has also sat there pulling my hair out trying to objectively explain in a news story how even a puny county law says xyz in its provisions but is going to mean abcdefghijklmnop in its application -- I have to make the point that the wording in the bill isn't always going to clue you in to the impact. I think much of law school must be about learning how to write alarming laws in "non-alarmist" ways. I have lawyers in the family, so I'm allowed to crack on law school.

Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't be so ticked at my pal Joyce. I was peevish. But you know, I fought for her right to forthrightly represent the Liberty Bell Chapter of the Republican Women's Club of the Nice Houses in Beautiful Neighborhoods. You know, I have friends with Nice Houses in Beautiful Neighborhoods. One or two of them are even mis-led Republicans. I have compassion for them. Always room for one more.

...So then I try to join in the discussion of the issue with the writings of a respected Republican commentator, and she goes, Nyah, nyah, we Republicans won; we've got a mandate to spy on all you low-lifes, but of course the better half, we of the Republican Women's Garden Club, won't be on the list. Or some such. And ignores me...

So, yeah, I made some of that up, but not whole lots.

Maria

Here's another bad part of the Homeland Security bill. You'll appreciate this one, Terri. Under this one, nuclear reactors and such could hide their environmental troubles from the government's own environmental regulators by shuffling it into the "top secret" part of this new huge information beast the government wants us to feed.

Holy moly. And if it gets held over for the new Congress, what will that bunch do? Of course, its the same old same guys from my neck of the woods...

Sigh. I hate politics. But this is just too much.

Washington Post editorial

Maria

Here's more on this administration's assault to dismantle civil liberties...and right now with no delay:

This is an editorial from the New York Times today, November 19, which means it's the institutional voice of the newspaper evaluating and commenting on matters of interest to the public:

In reply to:

---

A Green Light to Spy

Anyone who worries that the war on terrorism will inspire an era of unprecedented government spying on Americans has new cause for concern today. The top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review handed the government broad new authority yesterday to wiretap phone calls, intercept mail and spy on Internet use of ordinary Americans. The Supreme Court and Congress should reverse this misguided ruling.

In May the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, a lower tribunal established in 1978 to oversee domestic spying by the government, issued a stern rebuke to the Justice Department for its practices. The court held, 7 to 0, that in ordinary criminal prosecutions the government had improperly used the more lenient standard the law allows for collecting information on foreign spies and terrorists. The court identified 75 instances in which the F.B.I. had abused its authority, in some cases by making false statements in eavesdropping applications.

The appellate court, in its ruling yesterday, reversed that decision. The appellate ruling is procedurally troubling. The court's sessions are held in secret, and the government is the only party allowed to appear before it. The members of the court are hand-picked by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Ignoring the diversity of views on the federal bench, he selected three judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The combination of one-sided arguments and one-sided judges hardly instills confidence in the court's decisions.

More disturbing, though, is the court's substantive decision and the way the Justice Department is interpreting it. The decision gives the government a green light to remove the separation that has long existed between officials conducting surveillance on suspected foreign agents and criminal prosecutors investigating crimes. Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced that he intends to use it to sharply increase the number of domestic wiretaps, and that he will add lawyers at the F.B.I. and at federal prosecutors' offices around the country to hurry the process along.

The Supreme Court should step in to restore the lower court's ruling, and Congress should redraft its statutes to clear up any confusion about what the law requires. One of the biggest challenges the nation faces is fighting foreign enemies without sacrificing civil liberties at home. Yesterday's ruling failed to rise to that challenge.

That's from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/opinion/19TUE2.html[/url]

---

Remind you of McCarthyism, Sabra? Big Brother is listening.

This is not a radical newspaper, folks. This is the grey-haired granny NYT saying, "Listen sonny, there's something wrong with this picture."

The sobering revelations of these last few days are really seriously scaring me. My own government is terrorizing me in its assault on liberties, its pay-offs and buy-offs and protections to the already rich, and its determination to further centralize money and power in the hands of the ruling oligarchy. Now they're making plans to slip the defeated plan for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into the budget bill. That story is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/18/politics/18TALK.html

What galls me is how people who will benefit by none of the agenda of the ruling class get drawn into being supporters of it. There are tons of those where I live. Bizarre.

Maria

"ALL PIGS ARE EQUAL"

That's what it says on the barn wall, anyway...

Love,
T

You didn't get it all, Maria. I'm also in a bridge club , a book club , and I even belong to a Country Club. I'm a registered Republican. I use up a vacation day at least once a year to work at the polls.

Sorry if I don't respond to everyone and that it appears that I am ignoring them. I work long hours and always have. Additionally, I do yard work, clean gutters, and do everything I can to maintain my nice home. Cause I like my nice home.

And ah, yes. The Home Security Bill makes sense to me.

Sorry to disappoint you, Maria, cause in spite of your jabs, I still think you are pretty .

Another words, it is okay for you to get ticked off with me.

Love,
Joyce