xxdr_zombiexx

The Feds on Campus
By ELAINE CASSEL | February 14/15, 2004

COUNTERPUNCH

It took the "mainstream" media two weeks or more to get to the story of the grand jury investigation that involved an anti-war rally at Drake University on November 16, 2003, sponsored by the National Lawyer's Guild. I reported on it last week, because a reader sent me the story from the Des Moines Register. The Washington Post never even ran a story on it, except in the February 15, 2004 "Nation in Brief," section, where it takes up a tiny bit of space. The New York Times did not get to it until February 10, on the same day the federal prosecutors backed off.

Now, say prosecutors, they were only looking for "leads" into who scaled a security fence at Camp Dodge the day an anti-war rally was held there (November 15), the Iowa National Guard headquarters. Federal prosecutors, who had subpoenaed the financial and membership records of the National Lawyers Guild, subpoenaed four students who were also local members, and likewise subpoenaed Drake University records and security camera tapes, now say that they were not "prosecuting persons lawfully engaged in rallies which are conducted under the protection of the First Amendment."

That is a lame excuse, considering that they would have gotten the records and testimony they wanted had the recipients not filed motions to quash. Their motions, and at least the Des Moines Register coverage, might have intimidated the prosecutors into retreating. For they did not wait for a federal judge to rule on the motions to quash.

The transparency of the prosecutors' pretense is further seen in their trying to make the connections that (1) the Drake University protests were related to the Fort Dodge protest and (2) that someone who "trespassed" on precious Fort Dodge attended either rally. Clearly, the prosecutors are putting protestors on notice that they will be "persons of interest," in FBI parlance, in any "terrorist" investigation, if a link, no matter how absurd and tenuous, can be made.

Showing that he is as good as denying the facts as is his Commander-in-Chief in the White House, Des Moines U.S. Attorney Stephen O'Meara also denied that the investigation was an "anti-terroroism" investigation. Then, do tell, counselor, why the subpoenas were issued by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force?

In yet another example of critics of the Administration being targeted for "terrorism," a truck driver who maintains a website critical of the government's trucking regulations has been questioned in the investigation into the ricin found in Senator Bill Frist's office. Let's see, the man worked for a contractor of the post office, and that contractor delivered the mail that had the ricin. Sounds like he's guilty to me.

Lack of "intelligence" in Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg. The Bush Administration is wanting in intelligence on all fronts. Whistling in the dark, chasing phantoms, hoping that it will scare its critics into silence. So far, it's not working.

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teachers law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime's dismantling of the Constitution at [url=http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/Civil Liberties Watch[/url] . She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net

[zombienote: As usual, a story like this is posted here because the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly, as well as the 4th - freedom from unreasonable search and siezure - are violated by the Federal Government and its crosseyed lust to repress and eliminate these freedoms.

Partly to exercize the rabidly anti-constitutional PATIOT Act and mostly to intmidate would-be protestors into silence for the upcoming March 20th Global Day of Protests.

Now consider all the things the Feds have left undone while they expended time and money to trash the lives of Ed Rosenthal and Tommy Chong. Cannabis activism even more despised by the Feds than Peace.

Hemp for Victory! they told us when it suited THIER needs. The Government of the USA should endorse both Peace and Cannabis.]

__________________
Torture Good, Healthcare Bad, Marijuana Evil.

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

xxdr_zombiexx

Deconstructing the Bill of RightsBy Alan Caruba

American Conservative Union

I do not think our government is evil, but I do think evil men could be elected to lead our government. It happened in Germany in the 1930s.

During the last century, governments given totalitarian powers killed an estimated 169,000,000 people. If you don't think it can't happen here, I would remind you of the flames that destroyed the Waco, Texas compound of a religious cult that, by most accounts, didn't represent a threat to anyone, wasn't engaged in any illegal acts, and, in which, more than 90 men, women and children were gassed and incinerated.

This would suggest that no one is safe from a government intent on serving a subpoena, even if it has to kill you to do it. It was our introduction to the Clinton administration, but no one would have guessed that a conservative, Republican-controlled government would serve up The Patriot Act that became law on October 25, 2001.

Most members of Congress, all of whom take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, voted blindly on two pieces of legislation that remain a cause for concern. One was The Patriot Act and the other was the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. The Patriot Act, more than 300 pages in length, was either written at lightning speed or, perhaps, some version of the bill, by some prescient anticipation of 9-11, was sitting on the shelf in the Department of Justice, waiting for implementation.

I am not a lawyer and I am not trained in the interpretation of law. However, I know the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized."

The Patriot Act, however, permits the government to delay notice of the execution of a warrant to parties under suspicion of "domestic terrorism." Specifically, in Section 213 it says, "With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result…"

Question? If the government can conduct such an investigation of a suspected terrorist, what protects any citizen from being identified as a terrorist and thus subject to "sneak and peak" surveillance? The Act is so broadly written that nothing protects a citizen with the provisions and intent of the Fourth Amendment. It renders anyone subject to a "sneak and peak" investigation in which all actions, communications, and personal records become fodder for prosecution.

Moving along, we come to SEC. 501: Access to Certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations.

"The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution."

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since, under the Patriot Act, "an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" is entirely permissible, it is essential to know exactly how the government defines domestic terrorism. That is found in Section 802 of the Patriot Act.

Domestic Terrorism Defined: Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping'; by adding at the end the following: the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

Question? If the government, under The Patriot Act, determines what "domestic terrorism" is and is not, what protection is afforded the ordinary citizen when, in fact, any violation of state or federal criminal law deemed dangerous to human life, can be identified as an act of terrorism? The Act allows the federal government to seize the assets of the alleged domestic terrorist without prior notice or a hearing and without filing criminal charges.

[zombienote: The Reagan Administration introduced the 'freezing' of assests of anybody caught with drugs to keep them from mounting a legal defense. The War on Terror has many unconstitutional precedents established by the War on Mariijuana]

Waiting on the shelf is the draft of another "anti-terrorism" legislation called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. If enacted, it would, in effect, nullify the Bill of Rights. As it is, The Patriot Act already does a pretty good job of that.

Depending on interpretation, anything dangerous to human life that violates the criminal laws of the United States or any State can be interpreted as terrorism. That, to most people, would seem to be a very broad interpretation, particularly since such acts are already deemed criminal under existing laws.
Under the Constitution, such crimes require that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…" with some exceptions involving land or naval forces, militia, or in time of war. Such people cannot "be compelled" to be a witness against themselves, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

If, however, you are arrested and detained, held without bail and unable to contact your family, let alone an attorney, you have no Constitutional protection whatever.

Does the Patriot Act actually provide more protection against terrorism or less in terms of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution? If less, doesn't the Patriot Act actually harm the rights of citizens with its broad definition of terrorism? If this commentary is interpreted to be an act of coercion or intimidation, will the First Amendment protect me?

There are other troublesome aspects of The Patriot Act. Take, for example, Title III, aimed at money laundering. This became part of the Act at the insistence of Democrats that include Senators Daschle and Kerry. The Justice Department has used it to investigate corruption allegations against a Las Vegas strip club owner! This is totally unrelated to any threat of terrorism. In this and other ways, the Act has a vast potential to deprive citizens of constitutional protections that, in effect, no longer exist.

[zombienote: More info on strip club incident - 1, 2]

Today, our Department of Homeland Security, combining the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and other agencies of law enforcement and intelligence gathering, makes it the single most powerful instrument capable of depriving Americans of the protections afforded by the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

If the Act is challenged in our courts, the case would surely make its way to the Supreme Court. This is the same Court that recently ruled money donated by citizens to political parties to finance campaigns is a form of speech and that such speech can be restricted. This is an appalling assault on the First Amendment. There is no guarantee the current Supreme Court would safeguard the Bill of Rights.

These are things Americans must think about and which only their elected representatives, having voted blindly for the Act, should amend or repeal. As written, The Patriot Act takes away precious elements of our liberty and privacy. I have yet to have seen proof it provides any enhanced security. And that's what we are told it was enacted to do. A piece of legislation, S-1709, the SAFE Act, by a bipartisan group of US Senators, and a companion bill in the House (HR 3352) has been introduced to insure The Patriot Act does not continue to trample on civil liberties has been introduced. Tell your Senators and Representative to vote for this!


I am not and never will be in favor of depriving Americans of the rights granted to them by the Constitution. That would be the death of freedom in America. History is filled with examples of what happens when citizens are deprived of their freedom. Freedom is not negotiable. You either have it or you don't.


Alan Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs", posted on www.anxietycenter.com, the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.

© 2003 American Conservative Union Foundation

xxdr_zombiexx

A Wise Consistency
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Lew Rockwell

Before the US House of Representatives, February 11, 2004
[excerpts]
*****************
Alcohol Prohibition – For Our Own Protection: Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences – sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses – is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users – 84% of all federal prisoners – but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.” Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone.

FDA and Legal Drugs – For Our Own Protection: Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. These same naïve dreamers are the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves, we must prohibit them from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses, and don’t get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available, with full disclosure, to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make their own decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after years of testing. It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society! For those who can’t get a potentially helpful drug but might receive a little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own back yard legally in their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state laws, adding insult to injury.

Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state regulations in all health matters. The nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws. The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available over the counter. However, Ephedra – used by millions for various reasons and found in nature – was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility.
**************

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

xxdr_zombiexx

Government Withdraws Subpoena
FEBRUARY 10, 2004 | 11:37 PM |Common Dreams

CONTACT: National Lawyers Guild
Newsroom: 612-978-1936

MINNEAPOLIS, MN - February 10 - The U.S. Attorney announced this afternoon that it withdrew the subpoena seeking records relating to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) chapter at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. Subpoenas directed at four activists were also withdrawn.

The NLG subpoena sought records relating its leadership and to a forum held at Drake on November 15, 2003, the day before a protest at which 12 were arrested. A gag order placed on employees of Drake University has also been lifted.

NLG President Michael Avery said, "The government was forced to back down in this case and it shows that people can and should stand up to the government when it is abusing its powers. The Lawyers Guild is grateful to our many friends and allies who supported us in the face of this attack by the government. This experience demonstrates that the American people cherish their right of free expression and the right of political groups to dissent from government policies."

Late Monday night, prosecutors from the United States attorney's office for the southern district of Iowa issued a statement confirming their investigation but saying that its scope was limited to finding out more about one activist involved in a protest at an Iowa National Guard based in Johnston, Iowa, the day after the forum.

Prosecutor Stephen Patrick O'Meara said in a statement, "The narrow purpose and scope of that inquiry has been narrowed to determine whether there were any violations of federal law, or prior agreements to violate federal law, regarding unlawful entry onto military property."

Federal officials had previously refused to provide any information about the grand jury inquiry.

"This is a complete retreat by the U.S. Attorney and an unequivocal victory for the National Lawyers Guild and the peace movement in general. The Guild is calling for congressional hearings to determine the extent to which the FBI and Justice Department are gathering information on student political groups, said Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the Guild.

The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, comprises over 6,000 members and activists in the service of the people. Its national office is headquartered in New York and it has chapters in nearly every state, as well as over 100 law school chapters. Guild members provide legal support to progressive demonstrations throughout the country, and well understand the nationwide trend toward increasingly repressive measures deployed against political protesters.

Higher Self

Political 'X-Files'...

One things for sure, change is coming...

The cannabis reform movement is exactly that, in motion. Just like physical bodies, this 'movement' has inertia.

"That which is set into motion, tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by an oppossing force." -Sir Isaac Newton

The Bush regime is fixin to learn a difficult lesson. What you resist, persists. Fixation with a War on Something, creates more 'something'.

Unity creates solutions to problems, division creates division. A wise Federal government would value the diversity of it's peoples, embrace it, work with it. This dissention towards those who hold a different perspective is counter-productive towards resolving anything.

I'm not saying that every psycho-movement needs to be embraced, but when multiple polls representing the will of the people is ingored, When multiple professional medical associations endorse something, when other major industrialized nations (our allies and neighbors) are envoking positive change, the Federal government should recognize this as being a CLUE.

Clasp onto something and grip onto something too tightly, and just like sand, it's gonna slip right through the fingers...

What would LOVE do?