In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Immediate and Total Repeal of the USA/Patriot ACT
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Immediate and Total Repeal of the USA/Patriot ACT
View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition
To: U.S. Congress
We, the undersigned, hereby declare that anti-terrorism legislation passed by our US Congress since the tragic and murderous September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation, seriously damage and infringe upon the constitutional protections that are enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
We declare that it is not patriotic, but rather Un-American to destroy the very freedoms which cause Americans to love their country.
We declare that open government is critical to democracy and that by imposing new levels of secrecy our government appears less trustworthy and lessens the people's ability to make informed decisions about government.
We declare that lessening the strength of the judicial and legislative branches of our government, while simultaneously giving completely unlimited powers to the executive branch does damage to our American principle of separation of powers.
We oppose the use of secret military tribunals at which a person is afforded no independent defense counsel and could be sentenced to die and executed without the knowledge and approval of the American people.
We oppose the president's orders to lock down presidential records, thus denying our ability to judge the actions of the executive.
We oppose the indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals if no criminal charge has been placed against them. We further oppose the holding of any person without publicly declaring the crime they are charged with.
We oppose the "sneak and peek" provision of the PATRIOT Act, which crushes our 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure by denying citizens their right to be aware that their property is to be searched and their right to protest such search if the warrant is out of order.
We oppose the collection of private business records by order of secret courts and the muzzling of those citizens who receive such orders from speaking publicly about them. This is a violation of both the 1st and 4th amendment.
We oppose the PATRIOT Act's destruction of e-mail and Internet privacy. In addition, the sharing of such data indiscriminately among any number of government agencies and even foreign governments is patently intolerable.
For these reasons, we demand the immediate repeal of the PATRIOT Act. We call upon our elected representatives to act in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and to undo these actions which violate the core principles of America.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/sabene/petition.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition
To: U.S. Congress
We, the undersigned, hereby declare that anti-terrorism legislation passed by our US Congress since the tragic and murderous September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation, seriously damage and infringe upon the constitutional protections that are enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
We declare that it is not patriotic, but rather Un-American to destroy the very freedoms which cause Americans to love their country.
We declare that open government is critical to democracy and that by imposing new levels of secrecy our government appears less trustworthy and lessens the people's ability to make informed decisions about government.
We declare that lessening the strength of the judicial and legislative branches of our government, while simultaneously giving completely unlimited powers to the executive branch does damage to our American principle of separation of powers.
We oppose the use of secret military tribunals at which a person is afforded no independent defense counsel and could be sentenced to die and executed without the knowledge and approval of the American people.
We oppose the president's orders to lock down presidential records, thus denying our ability to judge the actions of the executive.
We oppose the indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals if no criminal charge has been placed against them. We further oppose the holding of any person without publicly declaring the crime they are charged with.
We oppose the "sneak and peek" provision of the PATRIOT Act, which crushes our 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure by denying citizens their right to be aware that their property is to be searched and their right to protest such search if the warrant is out of order.
We oppose the collection of private business records by order of secret courts and the muzzling of those citizens who receive such orders from speaking publicly about them. This is a violation of both the 1st and 4th amendment.
We oppose the PATRIOT Act's destruction of e-mail and Internet privacy. In addition, the sharing of such data indiscriminately among any number of government agencies and even foreign governments is patently intolerable.
For these reasons, we demand the immediate repeal of the PATRIOT Act. We call upon our elected representatives to act in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and to undo these actions which violate the core principles of America.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/sabene/petition.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 21, 2002
SACRAMENTO - A tougher "open government" measure was blocked in the Legislature yesterday while lawmakers advanced bills that require skateboarders to wear helmets, revamp the rules over renters' deposits and name an official ghost town.
A measure moving forward would allow property of a registered domestic partner who died without a will to go to the other partner, in the same manner as surviving spouses inherit.
Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton, D-San Francisco, accused Assembly Republicans blocking a constitutional amendment that would bolster public access to government meetings and records. Republicans refused to suspend rules to allow action on the bill.
Peter DeMarco, a spokesman for Assembly Minority Leader Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said there was no need to consider SCA 7 now because the deadline for measures to make the November ballot has passed and it wouldn't be considered by voters until 2004.
Lawmakers are scheduled to wrap up their 2002 session by Aug. 31, although a lingering state budget deadlock could keep them in town longer.
The amendment would put into the state constitution the stipulation that the public has a fundamental right to attend government meetings and inspect government records, with some exceptions.
California has a series of open government laws already on the books. But supporters of the amendment, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association, say those statutes have been eroded by court decisions and efforts by government officials to block access to records.
In other action:
The state Senate approved AB 2216 that would allow surviving domestic partners to inherit property under estate succession laws.
The bill, by Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Boulder Creek, was approved 22-13, and goes back to the Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments. The measure would only apply to couples who had registered with the state as domestic partners.
The Assembly passed SB 1924 to extend California's bicycle helmet law to include skateboards, inline and roller skates, and scooters.
Currently, the law requires those younger than 18 years old to wear a safety helmet while riding bicycles.
The bill by Sen. Jack O'Connell, D-Santa Barbara, goes back to the Senate for approval of amendments.
The Senate approved AB 2330 by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, to allow a landlord or tenant to ask for an inspection of a rental unit up to two weeks before the tenant was scheduled to move out. The inspection would give the tenant time to make minor repairs or to clarify the amount of cleaning the tenant needed to do to avoid deductions from the deposit.
The measure goes back to the Assembly to vote on Senate amendments.
The Senate approved AB 1757 by Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, to designate Bodie the official state gold rush ghost town.
The designation for Bodie, 180 miles east of San Francisco, was blocked earlier by supporters of Calico, who wanted the designation for the Southern California desert town near Barstow. Lawmakers said Calico was a "silver rush ghost town" and would consider giving it that designation.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/news/news_1n21legis.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/news/news_1n21legis.html
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
advertisement
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
Subscribe to The Post
By Ted Bridis
Associated Press
Thursday, August 22, 2002; 8:29 PM
WASHINGTON -- A special court that oversees sensitive law enforcement surveillance forced Attorney General John Ashcroft to change his guidelines for FBI terrorism searches and wiretaps, according to documents released Thursday.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has not publicly disclosed any of its rulings in nearly two decades, rejected some of the Ashcroft guidelines in May as "not reasonably designed" to safeguard the privacy of Americans.
The Justice Department quickly amended its guidelines and won the court's approval. Nevertheless, Bush administration officials said Thursday they have appealed the restrictions, arguing that the new limits inhibit the sharing of information between terrorism investigators and criminal detectives.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the court has severely hampered the use of a broad anti-terrorism law that expanded the government's power to monitor people when terrorism is suspected.
"They have in our view incorrectly interpreted the Patriot Act, and the effect of that incorrect interpretation is to limit the kind of coordination that we think is very important," Comstock said.
The Justice Department declined to release a copy of the appeal Thursday night to reporters. Officials said it was coincidence that the appeal was filed the same day the court made its ruling public.
The court also disclosed the FBI acknowledged making more than 75 mistakes in applications for espionage and terrorism warrants under the surveillance law, including one instance in which former Director Louis Freeh gave inaccurate information to judges.
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the special court said.
The court's May 17 orders, signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, were disclosed Thursday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has raised questions about the Justice Department's use of wiretap laws in espionage and terrorism cases.
The court, now headed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said it intended separately to publish the rulings and promised similarly to disclose any future unclassified orders.
Ashcroft's instructions in March, in a memorandum to FBI Director Robert Mueller and senior Justice officials, made it easier for investigators in espionage and terrorism cases to share information from searches or wiretaps with FBI criminal investigators.
But the surveillance court, which approves requests during secret deliberations, found that Ashcroft's rules could allow misuse of information in criminal cases, where prosecutors must meet higher legal standards to win approval for searches or wiretaps.
"These procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not," the court wrote. In its rare public rebuke, it said the Justice Department spent "considerable effort" arguing its case, "but the court is not persuaded."
Ashcroft had argued that, under changes authorized by the USA Patriot Act, the FBI could use the surveillance law to perform searches and wiretaps "primarily for a law enforcement purpose, so long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains."
The Patriot Act, passed late in 2001, changed the surveillance law to permit its use when collecting information about foreign spies or terrorists is "a significant purpose," rather than "the purpose," of such an investigation. Critics at the time said they feared government might use the change as a loophole to employ espionage wiretaps in common criminal investigations.
"The attorney general seized authority that has not been granted to him by the constitution or the Congress," said Marc Rotenberg, head of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
In a follow-up order also disclosed Thursday, the court accepted new Justice guidelines amending Ashcroft's instructions. The court also demanded to be told about any criminal investigations of targets under the surveillance act and about discussions between the FBI and prosecutors at Justice.
"The first Ashcroft order sort of snugged up against the new line that was being drawn, and that may not have been prudent," said Stewart Baker, an expert on the law and former general counsel at the National Security Agency. "You might be able to justify it legally, but I can see why the court would have reacted badly."
Stewart called the surveillance law "a pretty heavy-duty weapon."
Critics have worried that the surveillance court is too closely allied with the government, noting that judges have rarely denied a request under the 1978 law. But the newly disclosed court's orders indicated irritation with serious FBI blunders in 2000 and 2001.
The court said the FBI admitted in September 2000 to mistakes in 75 wiretap applications, including then-FBI Director Freeh's erroneous statement to judges that the target of a wiretap request wasn't also under criminal investigation.
The court also noted that in March 2000, information from espionage wiretaps in at least four cases was passed illegally to FBI criminal investigators and U.S. prosecutors in New York. Clearly frustrated, the court said it barred one FBI agent from appearing before it.
The FBI admitted more recently, in March 2001, that it inappropriately shared surveillance information among a squad of agents, the court said.
c 2002 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50967-2002Aug22.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Posted: August 23, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Terms such as Smart Growth, urban boundaries, greenbelt, brownfield, infill and open space lace the literature of sustainable development. Rarely, however, is the term "Agenda 21" found in this literature, even though it is the document through which the concept of sustainable development entered the world. Americans don't want to hear that domestic policy is being dictated by the United Nations.
Our land-use policies have been dramatically influenced by the Untied Nations. The United Nations policy on land use says that "... public control of land use is indispensable." For a generation, government has been tightening its control of land use. In the early 1980s, the term "wetlands" entered the vocabulary, to describe what for centuries were called swamps, bogs and marshes. We were fed a steady diet of the value of wetlands to a healthy environment. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, devised regulations to protect wetlands, based on the 1972 Clean Water Act, which did not contain the word wetlands.
The National Wildlife Federation was not satisfied with the severity of the restrictions, so they filed a "friendly" lawsuit, in which the EPA agreed to re-write the regulations to the satisfaction of the NWF in order to reach an out-of-court consent agreement. Consequently, the federal government took control over more than 200 million acres of privately owned wetlands - with no thought of compensation.
U.S. wetland policy flows from the U.N. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, signed by the U.S. in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971.
The snail darter introduced us to the Endangered Species Act, but it was the spotted owl that demonstrated the power of the law to lock up land, prevent land use, and displace thousands of people who derive their livelihood from resource use. Now, the Endangered Species Act is the weapon of choice, used by environmental organizations and government agencies, to designate vast stretches of both public and private lands off limits for human use - again, with no thought of compensation.
The Endangered Species Act flows from the U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
The reason for the government's taking control of land is buried deep (page 993) within an 1,140-page U.N. document called the "Global Biodiversity Assessment," the instruction book for implementing the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. The Wildlands Project is identified here as "central" to the successful implementation of the treaty.
The Wildlands Project seeks to set aside "... at least half" of the land area in the lower 48-states as "core wilderness," off limits to humans. Most of the rest of the land is to be managed by government, in public-private partnerships with non-government organizations, for "conservation" objectives.
People are to be squeezed into "sustainable communities," that are defined extensively in "Agenda 21," and other sustainable development documents. Urban boundaries will prevent people from living in the suburbs. Single-family houses are "unsustainable," according to Maurice Strong, secretary general of the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development - as are air conditioning, automobiles and convenience foods.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development, meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, is negotiating ways to speed up the implementation of "Agenda 21," and to bring all nations - especially the United States - under the rule of the United Nations.
The Clinton-Gore administration was strongly supportive of this global agenda. The Bush administration has been less supportive, but Secretary of State Colin Powell has been sending mixed signals about the U.S.'s willingness to become "sustainable."
In an article prepared especially for distribution to the delegates at the WSSD by the United Nations Environment Program, Powell seems to be trying to redefine sustainable development, using terms such as "sustained" development, and by pledging more foreign aid, not to U.N. agencies, but to a new special fund to be administered by the U.S. He also says "We will also invite developed and developing nations to join us in providing freedom, security and hope for present and future generations." Freedom is not a part of the usual "sustainable" literature.
There should be no ambiguity. The United States cannot be "the land of the free," and "in compliance" with sustainable development goals at the same time. The United States must lead the world toward freedom, if there is to be any hope for future generations.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28704
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878