| 個人檔案In Search of the Truth部落格清單網路 |  工具  說明 |
|
7月31日 Insanity"U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill."
For the intellectually slow:
This means that without any proof the US can detain indefinitely any person who is "suspected" of having terror ties. The suspected person will not be guaranteed a day in court, the person would not have a right to see the evidence against him/her, the person would not be guaranteed the right to face his/her accuser, etc. Therefore, the president and his goons will have the right to jail anyone they please, indefinitely, without charge or proof. All they have to do is say that the person has "ties" to terrorism. Of course, the public will never know if these charges hold water because the administration holds the imaginary right to withhold any evidence from the accused or the public under the guise of national security.
In other words, anyone could be arrested and locked up indefinitely without any proof against them and NO chance to defend themselves in a court of law. This is unconstitutional to say the least. This legislation specifically states that US citizens could be locked up indefinitely even though citizens have the right to a speedy trial, the right to face their accuser, and the right to see the evidence used against them according to the US constitution. Not to mention that our constitution also states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Under this legislative proposal, US citizens could find themselves locked up and considered guilty without ever being afforded the chance to prove themselves innocent.
This is unconstitutional and un-American. If the president wants to do away with the constitution, then he should be forthright about it. He should just go ahead and declare that his ambitions are to have a dictatorial style police state. Then we could all stop pretending.
Update: More info on the proposed legislation from the Washington Post
"A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal." (WAPO Aug. 2, 2006)
They want to expand their reach to people who are NOT involved directly in terrorism. The new legislation is wide reaching and vague. Under this far reaching legislation, there could be a lot more people finding themselves targeted. Let us not forget McCarthyism. This new legislation is a resurrection of the McCarthy era. (me)
"The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said." (WAPO Aug. 2, 2006)
"Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.
Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals." (WAPO Aug. 2, 2006) Now this sounds like the country that I grew up in. Not. Actually, this sounds more and more like a fascist dictatorship everyday. (me) "[T]he provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials familiar with the deliberations." (WAPO Aug. 2, 2006) New crimes and More prisoners. I think that spells it out pretty clearly. And, the secdef himself can add new crimes to the list at anytime without consulting anyone and without presenting evidence to prove such crimes were actually committed. If this bill is passed, we may as well kiss our democracy and constitution goodbye. What the hell would we stand for as a country if we have given up all of our rights? What the hell is there to uphold and protect once the president strips the constitution bare? Right to life?America's moral relativism
 This is considered murder
 This is considered justified collateral damage
 He is considered a possible target.
Right now Congress is debating whether a cluster of cells should be considered human life and whether that cluster of cells should be protected under law. Meanwhile, there is silence in regards to the massive force that Israel is using in Lebanon. Our government said that they called for restraint from Israel, but the situation shows anything but restraint. Would you rather that your Congress show concern for a mass of 20 cells that is frozen and will be thrown away in a couple of years, or show concern for a 9 month old baby that got hit by a bomb the other day? What's more important to you?
Also, let's not forget the Iraqis. 7月14日 Humanity"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
(Albert Einstein, 1954) 7月9日 Update on Wiccan soldierfrom WaPo
"At the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in the small town of Fernley, Nev., there is a wall of brass plaques for local heroes. But one space is blank. There is no memorial for Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart.
That's because Stewart was a Wiccan, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion -- a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle -- to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers." I'm pissed. 7月8日 More military information compromisedFrom the Washington Post
"Personal records for every Navy and Marine Corps aviator or aircrew member who has logged flight hours in the past 20 years have been posted on a public Navy Web site for the past six months, compromising more than 100,000 Social Security numbers, the Navy Safety Center announced yesterday.
Investigators are working to determine how the records landed on the Navy Safety Center's Web site, which officials shut down Thursday after a member of the public reported finding the full names and Social Security numbers posted. Evelyn Odango, a spokeswoman for the safety center in Norfolk, said the list had been posted since December and appeared to be "inadvertent" and the result of "human error." The security breach involving personal information is among several data losses involving the federal government in recent weeks, including the loss of records related to more than 26.5 million retirees and active-duty military personnel on a laptop that was stolen in May from a Veterans Affairs employee's home. The laptop was recovered last month." "The Government Accountability Office, the Agriculture Department, the Energy Department and the Internal Revenue Service all announced that they have had similar personal data compromised recently via Web site postings, Internet hackers and loss of electronic equipment. Two weeks ago, the Navy announced that personal information on 28,000 sailors and their family members was compromised when it appeared on a public Web site." (read the whole thing here) Are you a human guinea pig?ABC News
"July 7, 2006 — Northfield Lab's experimental blood substitute Polyheme is currently in randomized phase III clinical trials recruiting patients without informed consent all over the country. At one point, it was being tested in as many as 27 cities; it is still being tested in 23 hospitals in 20 cities. With the FDA's approval, Northfield Lab has recruited hospitals to participate in the trial study with exemption from informed consent requirements on study participants. Although Northfield Lab claims that extensive information on the study has been made public, a vast majority of the general public has never heard of the trial." (read the entire story here)
This is absolutely unethical. I would suggest that everyone read the article to find out what cities are participating. It is absolutely appalling that the government is allowing experiments on people with no requirement of consent. I've heard many people praise the drug for it's life-saving qualities, and I have no problem with the drug itself. But, if we say it is okay to bypass ethic rules on this drug, it sets a precedent that can be used to validate bending the rules in the future. 7月7日 What next?
{ Friday afternoon, drinking a cup of coffee while sitting in the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center on Chicago's south side, a Veterans Administration cop walked up to me and said, "Okay, you've had your 15 minutes, it's time to go." "Huh?" I asked intelligently, not quite sure what he was talking about. "You can't be in here protesting," Officer Adkins said, pointing to my Veterans For Peace shirt. "Well, I'm not protesting, I'm having a cup of coffee," I returned, thinking that logic would convince Adkins to go back to his earlier duties of guarding against serious terrorists. Flipping his badge open, he said, "No, not with that shirt. You're protesting and you have to go." Beginning to get his drift, I said firmly, "Not before I finish my coffee." He insisted that I leave, but still not quite believing my ears, I tried one more approach to reason. "Hey, listen. I'm a veteran. This is a V.A. facility. I'm sitting here not talking to anybody, having a cup of coffee. I'm not protesting and you can't kick me out." "You'll either go or we'll arrest you," Adkins threatened. "Well, you'll just have to arrest me," I said, wondering what strange land I was now living in. You know the rest. Handcuffed, led away to the facility's security office, past people with surprised looks on their faces, read my rights, searched, and written up. The officer who did the formalities, Eric Ousley, was professional in his duties. When I asked him if he was a vet, it turned out he had been a hospital corpsman in the Navy. We exchanged a couple sea stories. He uncuffed me early. And he allowed as to how he would only charge me with disorderly conduct, letting me go on charges of criminal trespass and weapons possession -- a pocket knife -- which he said would have to be destroyed (something I rather doubt since it was a nifty Swiss Army knife with not only a bottle opener, but a tweezers and a toothpick). After informing me I could either pay the $275 fine on the citation or appear in court, Ousley escorted me off the premises, warning me if I returned with "that shirt" on, I'd be arrested and booked into jail. I'm sure I could go back to officers Adkins' and Ousleys' fiefdom with a shirt that said, "Nuke all the hajis," or "Show us your tits," or any number of truly obscene things and no one would care. Just so it's not "that shirt" again. And just for the record? I'm not paying the fine. I'll see Adkins and Ousley and Dubya's Director of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, if he wants to show up, in United States District Court on the appointed date. And if there's a Chicago area attorney who'd like to take the case, I'd really like to sue them -- from Dubya on down. I have to believe that this whole country has not yet gone insane, just the government. This kind of behavior can't be tolerated. It must be challenged. I was at the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center because I'm participating in the Voices for Creative Nonviolence's 30-day, 320-mile "Walk for Justice," from Springfield to North Chicago, Illinois, to reclaim funding for the common good and away from war. Mike Ferner served as a Navy corpsman during Vietnam War and is obviously a member of Veterans For Peace.}
So, this is how we treat our vets? I hope not. It is sickening to think that someone in this country can be arrested for quietly enjoying a cup of coffee just because of the clothes they are wearing. I think the cop should be fined for disorderly conduct since he was the one who instigated the whole thing and caused a scene.7月2日 Free Press Under Attack"Journalists and 'leakers' feel heat"
 By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Sat Jul 1, 11:47 AM ET "NEW YORK - Headline by headline, a trickle of news leaks on Iraq and the antiterror campaign has grown into a steady stream of revelations, and from Pennsylvania Avenue to Downing Street, Copenhagen to Canberra, governments are responding with pressure and prosecutions. The latest target is The New York Times. But the unfolding story begins as far back as 2003, when British weapons expert David Kelly was "outed" as the source of a story casting doubt on his government's arguments for invading Iraq, and he committed suicide. And it will roll on this fall, when Danish journalists face trial for reporting their government knew there was no evidence of banned weapons in Iraq. In London's Central Criminal Court, too, accused leakers will be in the dock this fall, for allegedly disclosing President Bush talked of bombing al-Jazeera, the Arab television station. The British government threatens to prosecute newspapers that write any more about that leaked document. Media advocates are alarmed at what they see as a mounting assault on press freedom in country after country, arguing it is potentially chilling the pursuit of truth as U.S. and European leaders pursue wars on terror and in Iraq." |
|
|
