Eminem VOTE Music Video - DPChallenge Forums

10/29/2004 01:18:44 PM · #26

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

While it may be true that the national Congress has not exempted anyone from habeas corpus, individual states have. Most recently, the state of Utah had was prepared to prosecute Mark Hacking for the first degree murder of his wife, Lori, even though her body had not been found ( it has, since ).

This is nothing whatsoever to do with habeas corpus. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. It is essentially the right to a fair trial and to face your accuser. It has nothing to do with having a body in a murder trial, in this context.

Specifically, this means that the patriot act allows the sixth ammendment to be waived. Now, given that this is applied to people who have their citizenship (legally?) revoked, they aren't covered by the constitution anyway, so...

The use of a writ of habeas corpus was to essentially say "prove that the charges are valid - show me that you have the body ( i.e. evidence ). What the patriot act is saying is that the government doesn't have to "prove that they have the evidence". And those who say that that's not right have a point, but only up to a point.
The framers of the Constitution provided for extenuating circumstances - they included Section 9, Clause 2, which says:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it"

It would appear that 9/ll attack satisfied the "Invasion" part of the clause and, by extension, any planning or preparation for further "invasions" ( i.e. attacks against Americans on American soil ) falls under the same provision - namely, a suspension of the privilege ( note that the Consititution does not specify it as a RIGHT, only a privilege ).

10/29/2004 01:54:37 PM · #27

Originally posted by RonB:

The use of a writ of habeas corpus was to essentially say "prove that the charges are valid - show me that you have the body ( i.e. evidence ).

That is roughly the right translation, however you've got the 'body' backwards. It means that the judge is demanding that the custodial officer 'shows the body' of the person who is accused. It is about the right to stand trial and have a right to hear the charges against you. Not the requirement to produce a dead body, or other evidence, in a murder case.

10/29/2004 02:01:53 PM · #28

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

The use of a writ of habeas corpus was to essentially say "prove that the charges are valid - show me that you have the body ( i.e. evidence ).

That is roughly the right translation, however you've got the 'body' backwards. It means that the judge is demanding that the custodial officer 'shows the body' of the person who is accused. It is about the right to stand trial and have a right to hear the charges against you. Not the requirement to produce a dead body, or other evidence, in a murder case.

That's why I'm not a lawyer, and should be considered dangerous with a little knowledge. And, why legalese is so confusing to us mere mortals.
Thanks very much for the clarification.

10/29/2004 02:04:07 PM · #29

Originally posted by RonB:

... And, why legalese is so confusing to us mere mortals.
Thanks very much for the clarification.

I agree totally. I had a similar understanding to you, up until a few months ago. I only spent the time learning about it after finding out I don't have some of these protections any more, particularly in respect of my immigration status.

e.g., //www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/habeas_corpus.htm

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 14:06:01.

10/29/2004 02:21:26 PM · #30

Gordon,
Upon further review, namely HERE I have returned to my original understanding of habeas corpus - that is that the "evidence" must be sufficient, and valid, to support the charges.
If you would be so kind as to look at the link I provided and give me your opinion, I would be most grateful. I'd really like to have a "correct" understanding of this important legal proceeding.

Ron

10/29/2004 02:26:01 PM · #31

Originally posted by RonB:

From your link
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

Judge, telling the prison official, to 'show the body' or bring the inmate to court.

It has nothing to do with evidence. It doesn't even take in to account guilt or innocence. It is all about demonstrating that the 'body' is being held legally. The Cornell link above also explains this.

Essentially, it is your protection against being held without trial. It allows you to have a judge review the legality of you being held, by demanding that you are brought, in person, to the court. It does also get used in the meaning 'you should have the body' as a short term to indicate that correct due process should have been followed. However, it is not 'waived' when someone is taken to court when a 'body' can't be found.

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 14:32:19.

10/29/2004 02:39:10 PM · #32

It was originally a British law (and one of the main triggers of the American revolution) but essentially the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 guaranteed that a person detained by the authorities would have to be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined.

In that context the 'you should have the body' is part of the legality question. My original understanding was that it meant you had to have the 'evidence' or 'body' against someone. However, it really means you have a right not to be locked up without any judicial review.

This is repealed for (legal and illegal) immigrants in the US, but subject to a lot of debate, right now. The situation in Guantanamo Bay is similar, but legally different. Those detainees do not have any right of Habas Corpus, so can be kept locked up without review, for an unspecified length of time (also obviously subject to a lot of debate)

10/29/2004 02:54:10 PM · #33

Originally posted by Gordon:

Ahh. That helps a lot. The "original" Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 explains a lot ( see here. Even though the language is archaic, it is still more understandable than the lexicon link you provided.
I find it interesting that the Habeaus Corpus Act of 1679 waived the privilege(right?) for those committed for acts of treason or felony.

FWIW, I find it most remarkable, and rather a source of much consternation, that in the U.S. the first thing done at trial is to seek "precedent" rulings upon which to base interpretations. That is why "activist" judges are such a problem - they can, in effect "make" law for future proceedings. Rather, I would prefer having ALL legal proceedings based on interpretation of the codified law, apart from prior interpretations. I'd be interested in your views relative to that stated preference. ( If I'm not mistaken, I believe that that is how British law works ).

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/29/2004 03:06:18 PM · #34

Originally posted by RonB:

( If I'm not mistaken, I believe that that is how British law works ).

There isn't really any single thing as 'British' law. Scotland has a seperate (and vastly superior ;) ) legal system from that of England and Wales. There are actually quite a few distinctions in this. But in general, you are right, Scotland doesn't have a system like the US common law, precidence based system. Not so sure that is true for England/Wales.

Scottish Law is one of the few with more than two verdicts. You can be guilty, not guilty or 'not proven' As far as I can tell that third option is reserved for those 'we know you did it but don't have enough evidence' cases. cf OJ Simpson for a good potential candidate.

//www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Scottish-Law

After the Union with England, Scotland retained its unique legal system. The Scottish system is based on the Roman law or civil law, the English inspired common law and native custom. Unlike most civil law jurisdictions, Scots law is uncodified.

Legal System
Not Proven Verdict
The Scots Legal system is unique in have three possible verdicts for a criminal trial: "guilty", ""not guilty" and "not proven". Both "not guilty" and "not proven" result in an acquittal with no possibility of retrial. The third verdict resulted from historical accident, in that there was a practice at one point of leaving the jury to determine facutal issues one-by-one as "proven" or "not proven". It was then left to the judge to pronounce upon the facts found "proven" whether this was sufficient to establish guilt of the crime charged. Now the jury decides this question after legal advice from the judge, but the "not proven" verdict lives on. The "not proven" verdict is often taken by juries and the media as meaning "we know he did it but there isn't enough proof".

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 15:08:17.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/29/2004 05:46:57 PM · #35

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

I think videos like "I'm a mother-f*cking P-I-M-P" (from 50 cent) that are deamed to be cool are way more harmful.

I fully agree.

Its so nice when we can all find something to agree on... :)

(Even up here on my "high horse".)

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 17:48:04.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/29/2004 05:50:36 PM · #36

Scottk, it almost brings a tear to my eye ;-)

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/29/2004 06:03:19 PM · #37

Ron: Gordon is correct (as I think you agreed with) on habeas corpus - it has to do with not being able to arrest someone and stick them in prison, never to be seen again. The term I think you're confusing it with is corpus delecti, which has to do with the "body of evidence". As far as I understand, there is no absolute rule or law which states you can't try someone for murder without a body. However, it can be very difficult to get a conviction without a body, since it allows for the doubt of whether the person was actually killed or not.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/29/2004 06:11:05 PM · #38

Originally posted by ScottK:

Sounds like a good before & after on Wheel of Fortune - the answer is "habeas corpus delecti". You may have hit the nail on the head Scott. Thanks for disconfusing me. With Gordon's excellent mini-tutorial and your clarification, I think I have a more correct understanding now. Thanks to all - and back to the rant!

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/29/2004 06:52:17 PM · #39

wow the first constructive discussion ever in a rant thread...i'm shocked and thankful

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/30/2004 12:18:17 AM · #40

Ron, the government thrives on collecting data and information about it's citizens, whether warranted or not, but it doesn't mean that it will make us any safer from terrorism and will just be infringements into the private lives of the people of the US. I would think that as a conservative you would be totally against this kind of big government intervention.

The Bush administration had all the information it needed to stop the WTC attacks on 9/11 and yet it chose to turn its cheek and look the other way. Besides all of the numerous foreign government intelligence organizations warning us, our own CIA and FBI officers were ingnored about the impending attacks.

These Patriot Acts are only a means to terrorize and limit the civil rights of our people. It's happened before with things such as red baiting and McCarthyism...CoIntellPro too. At the least, I fear that the government will be giving out the information it collects on the people of the US, including very private information such as credit card accounts, bank accounts and all other manner of information to the corporations that would love to get their hands on it. NOT TO MENTION OUR DNA CODING!!!

The Bush administration doesn't give a hoot about terrorism striking the US. They do not serve the American people. They are here to further the aims of the corporations who have put them in power. If USPAII becomes law they could revoke anyones citizenship and without recourse. Who is going to decide this and on what grounds? What will be considered material support for terrorism? IN the meantime, the Bush administration has yet to do any kind of investigation of who provided material support for the WTC attackers!!! but want to ram this legislation down our throats yet again.

We already have many laws that would allow the government to obtain all the necesssary and desired information it needs, such as Carnivore, Echelon and the FISA courts. What do we need these Patriot Acts for, but only to deny the American public it's privacy and civil rights!

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
AND...As if the Patriot Act wasn't enough John Ashcroft has come up with the "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," dubbed Patriot Act II. Patriot Act I already allows the government to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on the citizens of the US without judicial review, find out library patron reading habits, etc, but as if that wasn't enough they have included these provisions in USPAII:

*Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)

Since burning the American flag is considered "speech" and, thus, protected as real speech would be, why shouldn't giving material support to terrorist organizations be considered "speech" in a likewise manner?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
*Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War."

While it may be true that the national Congress has not exempted anyone from habeas corpus, individual states have. Most recently, the state of Utah had was prepared to prosecute Mark Hacking for the first degree murder of his wife, Lori, even though her body had not been found ( it has, since ).

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
*The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."
Wired News flat out lied. I challange them, or YOU for that matter, to provide a single instance where someone suffered genetic discrimination based on their DNA, flawed or otherwise. And, by discrimination, I do not mean that they weren't prosecuted for a crime based on DNA evidence that tied them to the crime.

[quote=Oluzi]*Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

No warrant, but it WOULD require approval from the Attorney General, so "authorities" couldn't just act on their own. And, that is already law following a "declaration of war". The "new" provision only broadens it to include "authorization for use of military force" - not a huge leap.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
*The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

This is like the "have you stopped beating your wife" question - loaded. Of course "secret arrests" will be specifically permitted, but, then again, they have never been NOT permitted, though their legality was upheld by the highest courts. Wouldn't you rather have it spelled out instead of having to run to the courts for clarification every time?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
*Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

We already have laws that protect "whistle-blowers" in the workplace, and, I'm sure, YOU support them. This is just a logical extension to that protection. And yes, we actually WANT neighbor to spy on neighbor, especially if that neighbor is plotting to kill large numbers of us. If we had had BETTER neighborly watch in effect, the Columbine massacre would have been prevented, as would the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
*Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

If they are carrying out orders that do not entail destroying property or inflicting grevious harm upon persons, then they SHOULD be immune. If the orders were illegal, those who ISSUED the order should be charged. It is not reasonable to require beat policemen to have a thorough knowledge of all civil laws, nor to question orders that, under some circumstances, might be perfectly legal and proper.

I could go on to rebut the remaining items, but other duties call. I'll try to get back to them later. Suffice it to say - most of your fears are just that

The sky is falling

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 00:24:04.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/30/2004 12:44:57 AM · #41

That "droning, plodding, litany of babble" "noise" will get through to more voters than your discourse. How's that feel? Seriously.

What you said as a 19 year old heard it:
Blahblah Patriot Act Blahblah Defense of Marriage Act blahblah DNA Corpus blahblahblah.

What Eminem said as the 19 year old heard it:
Take the President and strap him an AK.
Let him go fight his own war, let him impress Daddy that way...
Come with me, and I won't steer you wrong
Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog
Someone's trying to tell us something, maybe this is God just saying
we're responsible for this monster, this coward, that we have empowered
This is Bin Laden, look at his head nodding,
How could we allow something like this, Without pumping our fist
we set aside our differences, and assemble our own army, to disarm this weapon of mass destruction that we call our president.

The point, to me, is that the babble is the stuff that isn't heard, absorbed, understood. What is the point if this? To convince each other? Y'all could have arguments with each other without the other around you've been through this so many times. It's not each other that is going to change in the next few days. Most undecideds are not 45!

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 00:45:21.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/30/2004 01:19:31 AM · #42

here

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/30/2004 10:13:20 AM · #43

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Ron, the government thrives on collecting data and information about it's citizens. . .

Just what does that mean, "the government thrives" on collecting data about its citizens? Great rhetoric, but could you be a little more specific on HOW it "thrives" on data?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

. . .whether warranted or not, but it doesn't mean that it will make us any safer from terrorism. . .

On the contrary, it has already made us safer, though not yet "safe".

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

. . .and will just be infringements into the private lives of the people of the US.

Infringements into? You can't infringe INTO, but assuming that you meant simply infringes the right to privacy of the people of the US, please tell me how else can we conduct the intelligence gathering that is NECESSARY to prevent further terrorist acts against the people of the US?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I would think that as a conservative you would be totally against this kind of big government intervention.

I don't care whether its BIG government or SMALL government - and I don't consider it to be "intervention" until the big old nasty government actually DOES something to ME - which I don't fear at all, because I don't have anything to HIDE. I don't believe that I or anyone in my family do anything that the government would be that interested in.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The Bush administration had all the information it needed to stop the WTC attacks on 9/11 and yet it chose to turn its cheek and look the other way. Besides all of the numerous foreign government intelligence organizations warning us, our own CIA and FBI officers were ingnored about the impending attacks.

You know, after nearly every suicide, you hear people saying "The signs were there - we just didn't pay enough attention to them". Many times, there are different pieces of information that don't come together until AFTER the act has occurred. The information that YOU speak of regarding the 9/11 atttacks was there during the CLINTON administration. The terrorists didn't plot 9/11 in the brief 8 months of the Bush administration. Most of the terrorists came into the country during Clinton's watch.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

These Patriot Acts are only a means to terrorize and limit the civil rights of our people.

I'm one of "our people" and I'm not "terrorized". My civil rights aren't being limited. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It's happened before with things such as red baiting and McCarthyism...CoIntellPro too.

I would hope that we learned from those "witch hunts" ( that's what they reminded me of ). So far, there have, indeed, been a few mistakes made - people detained, then released. But I, myself, would rather be detained and released than to have REAL terrorists be successful in their efforts to destroy us becasuse we didn't want to "limit their civil rights". WE ARE AT WAR - THEY WANT TO KILL US. Don't you get that?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

At the least, I fear that the government will be giving out the information it collects on the people of the US, including very private information such as credit card accounts, bank accounts and all other manner of information to the corporations that would love to get their hands on it. NOT TO MENTION OUR DNA CODING!!!

I guess that I don't share in your "fear". I have more fear that my BANK will let hackers get that information, than I fear that the gov't will give it away.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The Bush administration doesn't give a hoot about terrorism striking the US. They do not serve the American people. They are here to further the aims of the corporations who have put them in power.

Sorry, I can't even think of how to respond to such rhetoric, except to say that you can't show a shred of evidence to support your wild speculation.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

If USPAII becomes law they could revoke anyones citizenship and without recourse. Who is going to decide this and on what grounds? What will be considered material support for terrorism?

I will decide; my decision will be made by the toss of a coin; material support will be determined by the distance between the accused's eyes.

Seriously, do you think that such power will be used capriciously?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

IN the meantime, the Bush administration has yet to do any kind of investigation of who provided material support for the WTC attackers!!! but want to ram this legislation down our throats yet again.

Blah, blah, blah. What's more important - preventing another attack, or investigating the last one? I say the former.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

We already have many laws that would allow the government to obtain all the necesssary and desired information it needs, such as Carnivore, Echelon and the FISA courts. What do we need these Patriot Acts for, but only to deny the American public it's privacy and civil rights!

We need them to enable our intelligence gathering agencies to obtain the information that could prevent the next 9/11.

You know, Olyuzi, that the 9/11 attack on the WTC took place in NYC, but none of the plotting took place in NYC. Most of it probably took place in Florida. I live in Florida - you live in New York. In all likelihood, the next major attacks will impact NYC again, not Orlando. But I will GLADLY give up my privacy and civil rights to the point of permitting the government to listen to my phone calls, monitor my web-surfing, check my library activities, track my automobile's movements, look at my retail purchases and bank transactions, etc. if that means that such a next attack would be thwarted. I'd gladly do that for YOU, and the others who I don't know and probably never will.

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 10:14:53.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/30/2004 02:58:39 PM · #44

Thank you Ron, for your courageous and generous willingness to give up your privacy and civil rights for the purpose of making terrorism less likely. However, you will probably be the last person to be bothered by government officials.

As an aside, why is it that, as you say, NYC will be impacted by the next terrorist attack yet, according to this article, , "...places like New York, that are getting funding to the tune of about $2 per capita, while some states out west are seeing $30-$40 per capita?"

â��The FBI renewed its covert actions against white, middle class domestic dissenters sometime during the early 1980's, after barely a decade of official restraint. In this case the targets were U.S. citizens who expressed disagreement with the Reagan Administration's policies in a Central American country called El Salvador. These activists and church leaders formed the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, and some began to hide runaways from the civil wars in Central America. This modern underground railroad sparked extreme displeasure in the offices of the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the State Department, and the FBI. That displeasure manifested itself in burglaries, death threats, and eventually infiltrations against the people and organizations allied with CISPES. In El Salvador, people who were caught returning for their families were picked up by Salvadoran police or military units, and were often tortured or killed. Their names were provided by the U.S. domestic intelligence network of which the FBI was a part. In all, the FBI indexed over 2,375 people involved in domestic dissent against the U.S. government's policies in Central America. They did this, in part, using a law passed in 1978 called FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"Using FISA, the FBI has investigated over 1,330 progressive domestic political and religious groups due to their solidarity with the Committee in Support of the People of El Salvador (CISPES). According to Herman Schwartz, writing in The Nation, "The enactment of FISA has not eliminated the incentive to use intelligence gathering authority improperly to obtain evidence for criminal prosecutions."
From: //www.drewhendricks.freeservers.com/CISPES.htm

â��WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced that he will relax decades-old restrictions that limit the FBI from monitoring religious and political groups that aren't specifically suspected of planning or committing a crime.â��
From: //www.nacba.net/Article/Ashcroft.htm (National Association of Church Business Administions)

â��President Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer rounded up thousands of antiwar activists in the years after World War I, deporting many well known leaders such as Emma Goldman and "Big Bill" Haywood to the Soviet Union.
During the Vietnam War the FBI undertook the massive COINTELPRO program of intelligence gathering, infiltration and murder of civil rights and antiwar activists. The CIA was also implicated through its infiltration of the student antiwar movement.
The role of Chicago police in the 1969 murder of Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton was exposed by a Commission of Inquiry headed by civil rights activist Roy Wilkins and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his book Search and Destroy. The authors write; "Many may simply refuse to believe officials are capable of unlawful violence. Others will believe such violence and support it. But surely most Americans will not knowingly accept police lawlessness. If official violence is to be renounced, the truth must finally overcome our natural reluctance to incriminate government."
On Aug 2nd, 1991, as Saddam Hussein consolidated his grip over Kuwait, President George Bush signed an Executive Order declaring a "National Security Emergency" within the U.S. That order and others enacted in the following months began a process of gradual imposition of restrictions on civil rights.
From: //nwo.media.xs2.net/articles/91_03_13rights.html

â��After World War II, Hoover focused on the perceived threat of Communist subversion. In office until his death, he became increasingly controversial. His many critics considered his anticommunism obsessive, and it has been verified that he orchestrated systematic harassment of political dissenters and activists, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Hoover accumulated enormous power, in part from amassing secret files on the activities and private lives of political leaders and their associates.â��
From: //www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0824135.html

There are many more articles on the internet about how the US government, through the FBI, has harassed and collected information on itâ��s citizens, especially political dissenters for many years. One more article that links to a number of articles on domestic spying within the US: //www.datafilter.com/mc/domesticSpying.html

This is very threatening to our freedoms of free speech, religion and assembly, and, imo, USPAI and II are for the purpose of expanding the harassment of US citizens (especially dissenters) and will give the government carte blanche into revoking citizenship and deporting those that speak up against its policies.

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 15:02:06.