I have been challenged on a recent posting involving the Bush administration forcing a government censor to appear with the top NASA scientist when he addressed a government body, and ultimately the press (see posting below). This is not about whatever views he has expressed, but his right to express them free of censorship, or fear from intimidation.
But, this is not just my opinion, here are excerpts from numerous postings in regards to the Bush / Cheney administrations assault on the Bill of Rights. I invite you to read the links provided. Can they all be wrong? Are they all just crackpot liberals politicizing everything? i invite you to be the judge....
"Somewhere between the elimination of privacy rights and abolition of checks and balances, it becomes startlingly apparent that over the furor of “preventive justice”, the White House has silently squandered our constitutional protections of due process and civil liberties.
The PATRIOT Act’s baleful abrogation of our right to due process under the law cannot be overstated. As defined in legal jargon, our constitutional right to due process endows every person with appropriate safeguards to protect against arbitrary or unreasonable treatment under the law. It is noteworthy to all, including the Department of Justice, that the framer’s used the term ‘person’ instead of ‘citizen’ in reference to due process. This makes the worst provisions of the PATRIOT Act all the more deplorable for their targeted discrimination of non-citizens. In essence, these provisions institute ideological censorship, authorize deportation for lawful group activities, and allow the Attorney General to detain foreigners with a piece of paper.
Such blatant constitutional violations by the PATRIOT Act, however, are not restricted to foreigners alone. The legislation expands terrorism laws to include “domestic terrorism”, which could subject common political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, and harassment for political advocacy. Consequently, the mere threat of criminal action is employed to suppress peaceful dissent.
Intelligence agents are similarly granted increased powers to detain citizens for investigative purposes and conduct surveillance—even when there is no basis for suspecting criminal activity. One particularly Orwellian provision involves the notorious “sneak and peek” warrant. Not to be confused with the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures, this new and improved PATRIOT warrant permits agents to search homes and confiscate property under a low evidentiary standard, without first notifying the owner. The House also voted to repeal Section 215 of the Act, extending government surveillance powers into the very bastions of access to the free press: bookstores and public libraries. Under this provision, the FBI can force librarians and booksellers to turn over the records of their customers without showing probable cause before an ordinary court. The Act also carries a gag order, criminalizing any discussion of FBI searches with the threat of prosecution.
Such outrageous violations of due process and equal protection have not gone unnoticed in America’s town halls. More than 160 local governments and three states have passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act, and numerous civil liberty groups have filed lawsuits against the Act’s constitutional violations. At the same time the Inspector General of the Justice Department has submitted two scathing critiques of the Department’s treatment of immigrants swept up under the Act’s broad provisions. The report details dozens of blatant civil rights abuses, many alleging inhumane treatment of prisoners at the hands of Department employees."
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1184"If anyone had predicted that the election of George W. Bush to the presidency would result in an American police state and illegal wars of aggression, he would have been dismissed as a lunatic.
What American ever would have thought that any US president and attorney general would defend torture or that a Republican Congress would pass a bill legalizing torture by the executive branch and exempting the executive branch from the Geneva Conventions?"
WASHINGTON - "A statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant.
The White House denies any change in policy, but civil libertarians are alarmed, saying the government has never publicly claimed that power before."
"Fear of the legitimate threat of terrorism is allowing us to be weak on protecting our most cherished gift we possess as Americans; our freedoms as set forth in our constitution and its amendments. We’re allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of by those who would desire to see our freedoms lessened for their own lustful purposes. Because of our fear we have ignored the fact that we were attacked by a group of predominately Saudi Arabian men on 9-11. They were from a violently radical Islamic fundamentalist organization named Al Qaeda. But Bush and his cohorts have decided to lead the nation away from those who attacked us. Instead we’ve been duped into raging war against a tactic. An unending war against a nameless and faceless foe called ‘terrorist’. It was used as an excuse for an ill-advised war of choice and subsequent bloody occupation in Iraq. It’s the excuse for the horror the neocon dominated administration is about to unleash on Iran. "
"Congress has overwhelmingly passed, and the president has enthusiastically signed, an anti-terrorism bill that, as the ACLU says, gives "enormous, unwarranted power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review." Moreover, "most of the new powers could be used against American citizens in counterterrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations completely unrelated to terrorism."
On October 12, the House voted, 337 to 79, for a 175-page bill that most of its members hadn't even had time to read. Democratic congressman John Conyers said on C-Span that only two copies of the bill were available to his side of the aisle.
Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin reacted mordantly to what he described as "a backroom quick fix" before the vote. "Why should we care?" he said. "It's only the Constitution." Barney Frank said it plainly: "This was the least democratic process for debating questions fundamental to democracy I have ever seen. A bill drafted by a handful of people in secret, subject to no committee process, comes before us immune from amendment."
Another sneak attack on the democratic process had put a quick fix on the Senate Judiciary Committee's anti-terrorism bill. Present at that closed-door session were Senate leaders and emissaries from the administration.
Swiftly, the Senate passed that much harsher legislation by a vote of 96 to 1 on October 11. Again, most members of the "world's greatest deliberative body" did not have time to read the entire 243-page bill.
The only senator with the honesty and courage to vote against this attack on due process, the Fourth and First Amendments, and others of "our cherished liberties," as the attorney general had called them, was Russell Feingold of Wisconsin.
On the floor of the Senate, Feingold had tried to rouse his colleagues to repel this attack on the Constitution: "It is crucial that civil liberties in this country be preserved. Otherwise, I'm afraid terror will win this battle without firing a shot."
Accounts provided to the
Daily Kos website are reprinted below.
Narrative re: Bush's visit to SCC on May 9, 2006 from Barbara Nicholson
"We stood with about 50 others on rte 674 and when the motorcade came by there was assault rifle OUT the window pointing at ALL of us and the cars all looked like I remember seeing in the Hitler motorcades in the movies when I was a child, all boxy and black and one had the Pres seal and American flag on the sides. It was absolutely chilling! I worked the inner city for 15 years with gangs and even with kids and families of the Bloods and Crips and have never had an assault rifle pointed my way. In my 75 years I have seen many Pres motorcades and shook many pres hands and seen many pres elects and their entourage but never anything like this with the motorcycles, big black cars and rifles were just the very last straw. It wasn't the rifle that was scary it was knowing that
this madman is so insecure and scared and psychotic that this is how he must travel.
The last thing America's workers need is another economic kick in the groin, but the Bush labor board may soon deliver what could be its lowest blow yet. The Bush National Labor Relations Board is easily the most anti-worker labor board in history and has lost few opportunities to turn back the clock on workers' rights, but even against this sorry backdrop, the scope of what they now are contemplating is breathtaking.
In a series of pending cases known as Kentucky River, the Bush board could strip what remains of federal labor law protections from hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers whose jobs include even minor, incidental or occasional supervisory duties. The pending cases involve charge nurses in a hospital and a nursing home and lead workers in a manufacturing plant, but these workers could be just the tip of the iceberg. "
"The right of the American people to challenge their government, to freely and openly debate the issues and policiesof the day is fundamental to our republic. Most Americans would agree that a healthy marketplace of ideas,unfettered by government interference, makes America stronger, not weaker. Not so the Bush Administration,which has used intimidation, spying, selective prosecution, and even physical barriers like so-called “free speech zones” to wage a broad and systematic assault on speech that disagrees with their policies."
Senate to Take Up Dangerous Religious Liberties Legislation in September
"In September, the Senate is scheduled to take up the "Public Expression of Religion Act," an act that essentially protects the free expression of some individuals, at the expense of millions of others. The bill would prevent individuals, often religious minorities, from having their attorneys' fees reimbursed if they win a lawsuit regarding claims made under the Establishment Clause.
"Religious freedom cannot be protected if Congress prevents Americans from taking legal action when their freedom has been violated," Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office said. "This bill would keep Americans from standing up for their right to keep government out of religion."
The ability to recover attorneys' fees in civil rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment Clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and keep government out of religion. People who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees -- often totaling tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so. But more importantly, citizens should not be required to pay when the court finds that they are in the right."
And that is not just the "World According to Kimba",
that is the present day world according to more and more people each day.
Attack our politics, attack us period.
But the truth is, the Bush administration has used a national tragedy
to orchestrate an assault on our civil rights.
I highly suggest you click on the link to the Washington Post for the full essay by Mr. Brzezinski. Very interesting take on the current times by the former National Security Director for President Carter. Kimba
