Browsed by
Tag: anti war

Your Lost Liberties

Your Lost Liberties

Comments 1 comment

A must-read. This sums it up.

Five Ways Bush’s Era of Repression Has Stolen Your Liberties Since 9/11 By Matthew Rothschild, The New Press. Posted July 24, 2007 at AlterNet.

From the new book You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression. Chilling stories of ordinary Americans whose everyday liberties have been violated since September 11.

One small bit:

The 1976 Levi guidelines prohibited the FBI from investigating the First Amendment activities of individuals and groups that weren’t advocating violence. And, mindful of the role of FBI agents provocateurs in the 1960s, the guidelines outlawed the disruption of groups and the discrediting of individuals engaged in lawful First Amendment activities. Domestic spying could occur only when there was “specific and articulable facts” that indicated criminal activity. Under the Reagan administration and that of Bush Senior, these guidelines were loosened somewhat. Then came Ashcroft. On May 30, 2002, he threw out the need to demonstrate any connection to criminal activity. Ashcroft’s guidelines allow the FBI “to engage in searches and monitoring of chat rooms, bulletin boards, and websites without evidence of criminal wrongdoing,” notes the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Additionally, agents are permitted to visit public places and events to monitor individuals’ activities with no predicate of criminal suspicion. These powers are not limited to terrorism investigations.” What’s more, Ashcroft’s guidelines “allow FBI agents to use private-sector databases prospectively in order to predict terrorist acts. These databases may be used without any evidence of criminal activity or suspicious behavior. The FBI can now go on data mining ‘fishing trips.'”

Executive Order Overrides War Dissent?

Executive Order Overrides War Dissent?

Comments 5 comments

One interpretation of the Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq” is that is actually provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US-led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon’s military agenda in Iraq. …

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act. The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement.

It is intended to “blocking property” of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It targets those “Certain Persons” in America who oppose the Bush Administration’s “peace and stability” program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those “Certain Persons” who are “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction”, or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq’s oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush’s program of “political reform in Iraq”, in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi “government” installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress.

I would love to hear from anyone who has expertise in law, especially constitutional law. It seems that many of these documents are so vaguely worded that it is simply a matter of if/when the administration decides to interpret it to its own goals.

The thing that bothers me the most about this order is that it is intended to be used against American citizens. On the one hand, it could be a useful tool to stop plans for violence. On the other hand, it looks as though it all depends on who interprets what counts as “undermining reconstruction” and so on.

Murderous Dispute Over War

Murderous Dispute Over War

Comments 1 comment

Man Kills Another in Dispute Over War — Press Calls It a First

Kentucky, August 6, 2006 at a flea market. Two firearms dealers, friends, standing outside a “snack shed.” The one who backs the war shot and killed the one who opposed the war. No charges as yet: he claimed self-defense.

“I’m sorry this has happened,” Moore, a retired railroad worker, said. “But then what’s done can’t be undone.” Moore told the Lexington reporter he thinks Smith and his family knew him well enough “to know what my thoughts are, his family does, because me and Harold was friends. That’s all I’ll say.”

The daughter of the dead man said the two men were friends and had discussed Iraq before. She said her father “had different opinions than everybody. He felt it was wrong that all of these young people were losing their lives over what was going on. It was just a political disagreement, like a whole lot of people have.”

(Thanks to San Francisco Liberal)