Bush administration's private joke

348 days to go? Do you really think Chancellor Cheney is going to abdicate as Supreme Leader for Life of the shadow government he created (and is still building)?

The new Act, S1959: Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention, is a vaguely worded attempt to limit what we as Americans may do and say while we engage in our First Amendment Rights. Under section 899C, a Center of Excellence, which is to be based in universities around the U.S., utilizing the social sciences found at universities as well as other researchers to make data and research findings available to the commission, who will file a 'Final Report' 18 months after the commission is created to the President and Congress. The report will provide recommendations, in order for the President and Congress to have a clearer understanding of what "measures can be taken to prevent" these forms of dissent. In other words they are looking for ways to shut anyone who dissents up.

There was an interesting court case in Portland, Or. a few weeks ago. Six women who call themselves 'Seriously P.O.'d Grannies', left painted red hand prints on the windows of a local recruiting office. The deputy district attorney called them terrorists.
"think of some evils that could happen and why it is important for the line to be drawn here. On September 11, some people drove planes into a building to make a point. The defendants say their conduct is necessary to avoid imminent danger because people are dying in Iraq. That is the same thing the suicide bombers say."

The jury decided this was preposterous and decided against the state. Next time however, if S1959: Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention is passed, the jury may have no choice but to send the old ladies to jail.

Oh, the jury has a choice all right. It's just that it will probably end up being overridden on appeal.

'Jury nullification' once meant more than ensuring that juries were impotent.

Yeah Shannon, under the anti-terrorism laws it applies to PETA and Grannies who attack government property. Funny thing though they could have asked for a permit to put it there. The symbolic bloody handprint is just what us guys in the military have come to expect from the lefties. I guess spitting on one of the soldiers who were recruiting just wasnt an option. Might want to try to catch them at LAX.

Revere makes valid points but its a Democrat Congress... I mean what else could they do to set it up for Obombme or Billary? Got to be able to spy on your citizens and opponents legally before one of them gets in. I mean Hell, Hillary and Bill were doing it for years without a warrant and they just said it was for national security. But if a Republican wants to do it ...Oh shit, its an automatic no-no. As for the Grannies? Arrest them for defacing government property... we do have laws that already cover that. If it falls under the anti-terrorist laws, then prosecute them under that statute too.

Why? Because later they might lay down in front of ammo trucks coming out of a manufacturer then it does fall to national security and its a terrorist act. This stuff also applies to the Mafia and any sort of union activity. Handprints? I really loved the one a few years ago when someone said they had put live cobra's in the office of a recruiting station.Oh its funny and sad. They need to use the voters booth rather than taking a chance with Darth Vader. Use the Force Granny!

Shannon, hijacking a plane falls under the laws of the US. Its certainly not about whether someone is dying in a war zone. They did it to make a point you say. But is that a legal point? No, and the US responded and took the Butcher of Baghdad out. Not a bad three weeks work. The reason there are no impeachments, or proceedings as such was that GWB followed the law and got a resolution to enter Iraq. Me, I would have gone for a common declaration of war on Iran, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan with an eye on Saudi Arabia. Then there would be no question about what our intentions were and whether we were right or not.

The Saudi's. They were very helpful immediately after the bombings and they all knew their shit was in the wind. But as usual we blew it. We didnt regime change the whole place... tamp them down if you will. We need to do that every 15 years or so or when they start building bombs. Go in, regime change and then leave everything but Afghanistan (Khyber Pass). Make the price of war so expensive that they'll not even contemplate it. Oh the Grannies made their point and its innocuous of course. But what next time they throw bricks thru the windows and red paint? Or the next group stands off with high powered rifles and plinks off soldiers? Thats where the terrorist statutes come into play and why they should be prosecuted. The Grannies violated the law. They need to be punished just as I would if I drove an Hummer with extra gas tanks, no catalytic converter, three cylinders firing and a sign that said, "Hillary, you can have my UHC payment when you pry it from my dead cold ass and wallet" thru the lobby of MoveOn.org!
Equality for all and that means there is a difference between the law and justice. The grannies flirt with prison time here. They probably though were relatives of Neville Chamberlain.

Frankly, I think you need to go and call your leftists and have them vote Republican. Doesnt seem that the Democrat thing is are working out for you.

Drive safely, play nice with the other kids, dont talk to strangers and above all....floss!

Jesus H Christ.

Who'd've thunk it, the way to ensure peace is to wage constant war and the way to ensure freedom is through terror and oppression.

Tell me, have you eliminated poverty yet? That's usually a good start, after all, all poor people are only poor because they want to be and they're lazy, right?

My head hurts now after reading that...

As a conservative I agree 100%. The administration, after 9/11, apparently took to bureaucratic way out which was to do what is easy. They decided to survail the American population because grandma might be a terrorist (I heard they were recruiting elderly grandma's now you know). It was a lot easier than actually going after Al Quaeda, after all they speak those funny languages and live in the middle of nowhere and everything. Beyond that, building a police state gives the appearance of doing something when going after the bad guys is too hard.

If the grannies had done that to an abortion clinic the liberals would not hesitate to call them terrorists.

Why? For "bloody handprints"? If that's terrorism to you, then you need to go overseas and encounter some real terrorism. Get out of your Mom's basement someday and step into the real world.

JSP: Of course you are engaging in rhetorical hyperbole, I understand that, but let's take it seriously anyway. First, grannies do assault both abortion clinics and those in them, sometimes with terrorist tactics (guns and firebombing). We all agree that is not much different than terrorism (if different at all; I prefer to think of it as just criminal activity). Second, anti-terrorism laws aren't being used against lawful or symbolic demonstrations outside clinics (or if they are, they should not be). Third, there is a difference between interfering with the operations of a facility and terrorism. I don't think anti-abortion grannies doing criminal civil disobedience outside a clinic are different than antiwar protesters doing the same thing outside military recruiters offices. Both are against the law and those who take part know that and are willing to bear the consequences for reasons of principle. But neither are terrorism, unless we stretch the word beyond all recognition for purposes of social control, which the Bush administration seems to want to do.

Randolph, your anger and frustration are clear in the rant but, I have to say your argument is incomprehensible. The subject is allowing our First Amendment rights to be eroded. Yours as well as mine. Why, as an example, does someone in government get to make the decision that using "Obombme" is a threat to national security and warrants a prison term? Six old ladies who sit on the sidewalk and knit went over the line when they left hand-prints on a window but, they were hardly terrorists.

Moving the definition from one that is reasonable to one that is absurd is a move towards fascism and not democracy. You and I have no say in the decision of what constitutes terrorism is the proposed Act. That isn't democracy. Fear rules the lives of people who are willing to allow this kind of Act. America needs to be strong but we have managed to survive 200+ years with our values intact. We did it despite wars, changing ideologies and numerous outside threats. Your willingness to change the very foundation of our country because of a couple thousand nutters in Pakistan frankly astounds me. I don't care how many out there hate us, even if it amounts to millions of people, we are a nation of free people and we need to keep those freedoms intact or, we lose everything for which the Founding Fathers stood for-and died for. Fear of anyone attacking us shouldn't ever determine our willingness to remove the cornerstone of our very foundation. Courage to spit in the eye of anyone willing to toss out the basic tenant of our democracy is what our Founding Fathers would have expected. They fought, went bankrupt and, died holding tight to that premise.

The real danger isn't the Taliban, the real danger comes from people who will give up our inalienable rights in the mistaken idea that we all have to be exactly alike and march in lock step. The men who stood up to the British were determined to avoid the mistakes of Europe. They decided the way to do that was to embrace our differences and allow everyone to have their say, even if it was an unpopular position. You and others seem to have forgotten our strength is in our differences, not in our sameness. I believe you should re-think your position. Because if you don't, it may be you that is targeted as a terrorist.

Ah but Shannon, it is the DEMOCRATS who are pushing this larger than life law thru. Its needed but in the form, not. I am old enough to remember as is Revere the days of the 60's and 70's when the Presidents were using the IRS and wiretaps on their political opponents (John Connelly for one).

As for how many hate us? They dont hate us really, they just want to pull us down. We only respond here when there is a direct threat, one that all can see. And what do our electeds do generally? They make it worse. Whether you know it or not that "cornerstone" was pulled out in WWII and then put back in, and now we are taking it out.

But, in a time of extreme situations the grannies decided to do something really dumb. Its not a First Amendment right the second the cross over and make an overt act against the US Government. That overt act is and has already been defined as illegal before this law came down the pike. I can also attest to the fact of what the Founding Fathers did. But in the same breath unless you have stood up close and personal in other countries and seen how easy it is to topple a government with the right pressure in the right places, well we do agree about that. We live in an age that really started almost 40 years ago in a desert in Saudi Arabia when there were three hijackings of aircraft and we did NOTHING except negotiate with them. It happened continously until someone figured out that they could use a plane as a bomb. The people at the controls were not unknowns and you are right, I am angry.

The people who stood up in front of the British were being deliberately and systematically pummeled by them. Things went south when they domestic terrorists (us) confronted them on the streets with arms. There was no avenue of redress so we had no choice. Here we have a voice and this is through our elected officials and even though its a small one talking to a bigger one its elected.

You have a problem with the above law... so do I. It should have an automatic sunshine termination in say 5 years. That would let it terminate without the Congress having to take a stand on anything... They like that. Pick up the phone as I did and register your problems. Right now we need one but its not being nominated because it has to have a Congressional Review.

And Shannon, it would be more like you that would be for now. Next administration if its a Democrat, I'll have to worry a bit. Difference is that until they take all of our weapons, they'll be always on the defensive on this little matter. Meantime, anyone that raises their ire is going to have to watch what they say to people in the old country . This law is also going to give them surveillance capabilities on people that have been changing their names and the like.

Wait and see. I am sure the first door they kick down right or wrong the ACLU will be all over them.

Revere has most of it. It does go back down to the Bill of Rights. E.g. the Grannies could interfere with the operations of an abortion clinic or a recruiters station by civil disobedience and expressing their positions by lying down, hand prints. But in the past and more so now they'll do it at the peril of their freedom.

If the Grannies assault a patron of an A. Clinic then laws from the 80's and 90's consider that to be racketeering. If they assaulted say a recruiter from doing his job as a representative of the USGOVT then it goes down this slippery slope for them. To some its innocuous but someone has to take the time to take the red hand prints off or get a contractor to replace the glass. Later the glass might be broken with a rock or a high powered rifle or grenade. The law is damned specific about this kind of stuff... You SHALL NOT in this country interfere with a representative of the government in performance of his job. You got a problem, you take it to court. The not so new idea is that we now have a large group of people in the country that are ethnic and in a major disconnect with the Judeo-Christian laws we have. This law gives us and notice I said US the right to run counter-surveillance and operations against them and this time its likely US citizens. If their rights get trampled...fine take US to court. Else they just have to be worried about who is calling the shots and unfortunately the positions Revere described are political. We will get hit again as a result and then some big cahoonies politician will insist that some total idiot gets put into the position who is an ideologue for their parties. Too much or too little is what we will end up with. That will equate to US citizens lives on both ends of the spectrum.

Oh... I dont like the law but I do believe its necessary right now. if we dont get hit again in say five years, we terminate it automatically. But that will take years more. Mind Shannon, we had the same types of laws in the 40's-60's and they were abused and put down. We got hit. Now they are back again and with all of the horsepower that the government could bring to bear.

MRK

You need to get a grip. Reading your posts proves to me that anyone who opposes your ideas of what the US should do or be is wrong, nonpatriots. When our jails are full of "grannies" who will do the work and take care of the all the "OVERFULL" prisons.

Randolph, I don't recall pointing fingers at either Republicans or Democrats. That isn't the point, fear of being soft on terror runs through both parties. As you stated above when we acted this way in the past, whether it was from fear of the 'red scare' to Lincolns laws, we realized the error of our ways and quickly fixed the problem-as you yourself stated. We don't need a sunset clause we need to remember that even in time of war everyone still gets a say. Red paint is hardly the weapon of a terrorist. Equating what the old ladies did as a terrorist act is ludicrous. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt just how idiotic people can be to prove a point.

As you type you are exercising your First Amendment rights. Just because I type in something different doesn't make me a terrorist,-even if I call Bush the 'shrub'. Just as it doesn't if you name Obama Obombme. You want me to give up my right to call Bush an idiot because you side with him. But, if your party loses you are unwilling to stop calling the dems whatever your new name of choice happens to be. In other words, you get to make the choice and I don't. You have been eloquent in demonstrating why this kind of law is ridiculous. You assume you are going to be on the side that gets to dictate what is allowed and, what isn't allowed.

What you fail to see is we both want the same thing. I am not however willing to give up my rights for any amount of time. Just as you would be unwilling to do so if the tables were turned. When would it end? When are we not at war with some one or some ideology? It would in fact encourage a party to remain at war to ensure their party remains in office. If you could stop people from disagreeing with the administration, regardless of which group was in power, you have effectively cemented your parties stay in the White House. Be careful what you wish for, you just might end up with a permanent democrat in the White House. Or, did you think your party was the only one who would abuse this power?

Sadly, privacy is not a constitutional issue, at least not explicitly. You (and I) can choose to interpret some of the amendments as enforcing our privacy, but Congress has been dancing around legislating a Right to Privacy for years. The Judiciary (at all levels) has been ruling across the board on this, some saying that a right to privacy trumps governmental intervention, others going the opposite route.

Austin: It was my impression this was a matter of some controversy. Isn't this the basis for Roe v. Wade? (not sure if this is true; maybe one of the lawyers out there can chime in). But most Americans believe it is a constitutional issue and come down on that side, at least that's my impression. They might disagree about its relevance or use on the abortion issue but they cherish their privacy as a Right.

Ann- Do you consider yourself to be unpatriotic? Thats the usual answer to this kind of stuff. When I say it it makes you unpatriotic. Did I say that? No, I dont think so.

Shannon-Over the years the Supreme Court and not just Republican ones have determined that the rights YOU think you have are flexible and have to be to provide security for the United States. The Japanese internment camps are a good example. They took a group of Americans only because of their color and eye type and sequestered them in the desert. You would likely say illegal. Sorry but thats wrong and the Court said it was at the time and that it was legal some 40 years later after their lawsuit was thrown out.

Maybe you dont understand but I do know that you get it. They have had the right to do these things for years and they could have done them without the above law. The difference? The ground they were standing on was a little quakey.

Oh and believe me, I have seen our government in action on this kind of stuff. Far more than you could ever know. But I'll give you an example. 1981 in Central America I get a call from my commander to tell me that my security clearance is under review? Huh? For what? Seems mommy had written a shit gram to the President of the United States telling him that he was a coward for not going after the Russians after the shoot-down of KAL 007 and that someone should string him up to the nearest.... Seems that the FBI and Secret Service took a liking to her participation in a Communist Party backed soiree as well as an issue from 1939 where the guest book was seized in a 1950's raid too. Amazing that they keep that much info on people that long.

Yeah Shannon...More so than most I dont like what is supposed to happen above, but it certainly rings home. I still think its necessary though. If for no reason more than the prevention. Prevention in this case runs from the American Taliban all the way to PETA and the Grannies. Someone gets a good sized group and starts hitting the soft targets such as day cares, powerplants or chemical manufacturers and you have what is going on in Israel nearly every day. Ever been to a place where summary executions were allowed? I have and its not a pretty deal. Its abused but for the better part the bad guys would get it.

Oh and you definitely have in your last para covered what MY problem with this is. Perpetual spying? No way. But they do it anyway from Canada on us. Look up
ECHELON in a web search. Perfectly legal. But do we want it?

Ann-What if the Grannies had lobbed a grenade in there? I will tell you how their little innocuous cases will end...in convictions of Federal misdemeanors or felonies. Those Grannies knew what they were doing and they did it as a group. Would it have been an exercise of their free speech for them to walk into that same office and throw red paint? No, and the courts have always ruled the same.

Toss in conspiracy to commit an act. Well ladies here is the law that covers sedition. I get that grip thing a lot Ann but no one ever bothers to pull up what the law says and maybe the Grannies need too. Do above all read it and note the date of implementation.... 1798. By my count it makes it about 200 years and change of "Grannies" going to jail for just this same type of stuff.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/sedact.htm

Conspiracy carries a lot of jail time even if the initial crime is a misdemeanor. The ladies need to write letters and exercise their free speech rights.

Remember though, its Congress and not a Dem/Rep issue. Its US... All powers not directly vested to the government reside with the states and we voted for Dems and Reps that are pushing this through. Why? It pisses Revere off. It makes me uncomfortable. They could get rid of this law in an afternoon if they wanted and they dont want to.... Bigger question is WHY they are putting it in, and WHY arent they pushing to get it out?

Sometimes the question is more important than the answer. Are we about to get hit again? Dont know......

But you see the grannies didn't throw a bomb, they left a hand print.....You are going to arrest them because you think to not do so, is a slippery slope to terrorism. You are in fact then espousing arrest for a crime not committed but only perceived as a possibility. Your solution is called fascism. We have the opportunity to reject fascism. Tell your Senators you think this ACT is a hideous mistake and they should reject it as a solution to a problem that only exists in the minds of fear-mongers.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/108361

I dont think its a mistake unless its implemented in the way it is now. BTW the courts dont care whether its a grenade or a hand print except in sentencing. No, there was an act. Obviously a conspiracy (but not in you mind), and both are punishable.

You see Shannon this is the part you dismiss. The crime is committed. Its not whether its red paint or a grenade. Its the act. What do they do if Grannies by the hundreds of thousands will not follow the law? Or if say 100 grannies a day hit 100 government facilities rather than changing the law. How about held without bail for a year or two?

Randy: It's not a question whether a crime was committed but which crime was committed. Was it the crime of terrorism? If so, there are a shitload of terrorists in this world, most of them teenies with markers terrorizing subway cars and building sides.

Randy,

"Seems that the FBI and Secret Service took a liking to her participation in a Communist Party backed soiree..."

Are you saying your Mother was a Communist?

Exactly Revere, the mechanism is in place for them to protect the infrastructure and the people in them. There isnt a distinction by the governments law and taggers with cans of paint could be prosecuted in accordance with that law. Its the gray area here that bothers me the most. Do we send the FBI out to go after taggers? No, but we might get into a situation where even the lovely Democrats are using this system against political enemies.

My bet... this gets revisited pretty quickly AFTER its abused a couple of times. You and I are old enough to remember that shit from the sixties where they kicked down doors on suspicion and in a lot of cases, the wrong house and people died. No I do agree with Shannon on this partially. If there were no active groups in the world going after our targets both hard and soft I would be in her camp but there is just too much going on. We saw what a cupful of Isocyante can do. We have rail cars with tagger paint on them...What if they had a 10 pound shape charge running along with a tank car in Boston or Chicago? Obviously something has gone seriously wrong here.

Conjecture? You bet. But I have to respond to a threat and not the ambiguity of Shannon's argument even though its well presented. I can see people who want to kill us and we know they are here too. Its not fascism if its administered properly and if its not the response will be dramatic. Shannon, fascism is when someone storms into a compound in Texas without announcing themselves as federal agents there to serve warrants. They also do in places like Ruby Ridge. And amazingly, all of the guns that were finally recovered in Waco were legally owned....

Shannon, be happy in knowing that if it gets out of hand that I'll be in there hammering away at them to get rid of this if it happens. But we have domestic terrorists and that includes the taggers and the Taliban.

In brief no. She went to a party with a couple of commies and that was when commie was an okay name. Of course to get the people to enlist in the Red movement they had them sign a guest book. Certain pamphlets were mailed out and discarded, but the book remained for some 10 years in this communists hands until it was picked up by the McCarthy people in a sweep of real communists. Her name turned up and the ONLY common denominator of information in the 30's, 40's, 50's was the Social Security number so they pulled the name, produced a SSN, looked up where the annual contribution to real socialism was being made. They had no reason to question her so it was all alone and by itself in the "potential problem" people file at the FBI. When she sent the letter in 81 it was immediately picked up by the S. Service who got copies of those files.

So she gets a visit. I get a notification of review. Due diligence IMPO. I called her and said next time write a letter to your Congress people. The President doesnt take letters.

FWIW -You write a letter to the president pro or con you go into a file. Anyone wants to check that can pick up the phone and call the S.Service. Public knowledge and never, ever allude that you would do bodily harm to a Congress person, the Prez, or any government official. That currently falls under another part of the various acts in place since Kennedy.