Archive for the ‘Police State’ Category

Claybough:”Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Repeal NDAA’s Indefinite Detention”

Friday, January 20th, 2012

“Texas Congressman and GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is continuing his battle for liberty even as he is focused on his fight for the White House. This week, he introduced legislation to overturn the dangerous provisions found within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”

“Rep. Paul spoke on the House floor, specifically against Section 1021 of the NDAA, which includes language which permits the government to detain anyone who “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” Paul fears — as do a number of other opponents to the law — that the language can be used against U.S. citizens as well.”

“Sections 1021 and 1022 in the new bill were originally sections 1031 and 1032 in the old version of the bill.”

“As noted by LewRockwell.com, however, the main difference between the new and old versions of the NDAA is the insertion of one paragraph between the “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date,” which is found in the new version. That paragraph reads:

(d) AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

“Still, most contend that the new language is scarcely enough to ensure that the rights of U.S. citizens guaranteed by the Constitution are secure.”

Raven Clabough gives a full report in The New American @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10608-ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-repeal-ndaas-indefinite-detention

Posted in Civil Liberties, Police State, Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Nation attacks TSA victims, and my response

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

The Nation magazine ran a tasteless piece attacking John Tyner and others who opposed the intrusive searches that the Transportation Safety Administration has implemented at America’s airports. The piece @ www.thenation.com sees a sinister conspiracy funded by libertarian billionaires to embarrass the President or something.

I have submitted a letter to the editor at The Nation, but if they don’t run it you can read it here:
Just read the column on “Astroturf protests against the TSA” and find I can no longer take your publication seriously.

When George W Bush was President, The Nation courageously oppsed the Patriot Act and other attacks on our freedoms in the name of the War on Terror. But now you attack people who do not wish to expose their bodies to dangerous radiation, and don’t wish to be physically groped, as somehow lackeys of billionaire funders of supposed right-wing groups.

If getting financial backing from rich people indicates your project is Astroturf, what about The Nation magazine itself? The Nation in modern times has never attracted enough subscribers to pay its bills, and has dependend on a succession of wealthy backers – Hamilton Fish IV among many others. Does that bring into question the integrity and commitment o principles of The Nation magazine? Perhaps not, but attacking people who want to defend their own privacy clearly shows a lack of integrity at The Nation, which now has put loyalty to The Democratic Party and its President above the civil libertarian principles it championed when the President was a Republican.

Perhaps The Nation should revise its editorial practices. Or it should honestly close down and save its sugar daddies the millions it takes to make people think there is any support for the worn out leftism it continues to promote.

Posted in Police State | No Comments »

A Police State You’d Better Believe In

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

“…when should a patriot oppose his government? One answer, which we may hope is obvious, is when his government is waging war on liberty. The trick, of course, is to recognize it as such, since the government will always claim to be defending liberty when waging war against it.”

“Thus it is that in the “war on terrorism” our government is building, brick by brick, a new police state, called “Security.” Consider, for example, this item from The Washington Post:

    The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual’s Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

    The administration wants to add just four words — ‘electronic communication transactional records’ — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the ‘content’ of e-mail or other Internet communication.

    But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

“There now. Don’t you feel safer and more secure already? Or do you have that creepy feeling that somebody is looking over your shoulder?”

Full warning against the new police state by Jack Kenny @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/959-jack-kenny/4167-a-police-state-youd-better-believe-in

Posted in Police State | No Comments »