more civil rights removed-Project Censored 2008

[sharingwisdom]

For all of 2008 25 top censored headlines, check
https://www.WantToKnow.info/mass_media/media_news/2008_press_censorship

5. Seizing War Protesters’ Assets (For full story, click here)
Protesting war could get you into big trouble, according to a critical read of two executive orders recently signed by President Bush. The first, issued July 17, 2007, and titled, "Blocking property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq," allows the feds to seize assets from anyone who "directly or indirectly" poses a risk to the US war in Iraq. And, citing the modern technological ease of transferring funds and assets, the order states that no prior notice is necessary before the raid. On Aug. 1, Bush signed another order, similar but directed toward anyone undermining the "sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions." In this case, the Secretary of the Treasury can seize the assets of anyone perceived as posing a risk of violence, as well as the assets of their spouses and dependents, and bans them from receiving any humanitarian aid. Critics say the orders bypass the right to due process and the vague language makes manipulation and abuse possible. Protesting the war could be perceived as undermining or threatening US efforts in Iraq. "This is so sweeping, it's staggering," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Justice Department who editorialized against it in the Washington Times. "It expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population."
Sources: "Bush executive order: Criminalizing the antiwar movement," Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 2007; "Bush's executive order even worse than the one on Iraq," Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive, August 2007.

6. The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (For full story, click here)
On Oct. 23, 2007, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed — by a vote of 404-6 — the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," designed to root out the causes of radicalization in Americans. With an estimated four-year cost of $22 million, the act establishes a 10-member National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. The bill's author, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Los Angeles) said, "Free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution. But violent behavior is not." In a later press release Harman stated: "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [DHS Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent." Which could be when they're speaking, writing, and organizing in ways that are protected by the First Amendment. This redefines civil disobedience as terrorism, say civil rights experts, and the wording is too vague. "What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much. It is criminalizing thought and ideology," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center in Portland, Ore. The story didn't make it onto the CNN ticker, but enough independent sources reported on it that the equivalent Senate Bill 1959 has since stalled. After introducing the bill, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), later joined forces with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a report criticizing the Internet as a tool for violent Islamic extremism.
Sources: "Bringing the war on terrorism home," Jessica Lee, Indypendent, Nov. 16, 2007; "Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," Lindsay Beyerstein, In These Times, Nov. 2007; "The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," Matt Renner, Truthout, Nov. 20, 2007.

8. Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly (For full story, click here)
The Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice has been issuing classified legal opinions about surveillance for years. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) had access to the DOJ opinions on presidential power and had three declassified to show how the judicial branch has, in a bizarre and chilling way, assisted President Bush in circumventing its own power. According to the three memos: "There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order"; "The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under Article II"; and "The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations." As Whitehouse rephrased in a Dec. 7, 2007, Senate speech: "I don't have to follow my own rules, and I don't have to tell you when I'm breaking them. I get to determine what my own powers are. The Department of Justice doesn't tell me what the law is. I tell the Department of Justice what the law is." The issue arose within the context of the Protect America Act, which expands government surveillance powers and gives telecom companies legal immunity for helping. Whitehouse, a former US Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island's governor, and Rhode Island Attorney General who took office in 2006, went on to point out that Marbury vs. Madison, written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, established that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
Sources: "In FISA Speech, Whitehouse sharply criticizes Bush Administration's assertion of executive power," Sheldon Whitehouse, Dec. 7, 2007; "Down the Rabbit Hole," Marcy Wheeler, The Guardian (UK), Dec. 26, 2007.

[d-cat]

Anti-war nuns branded as ‘terrorists
https://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/10...-‘terrorists’/


Are you a terrorist?
YouTube - HR 1955 Thought-Crime Legislation

[d-cat]

Supreme Court Rules Against Fourth Amendment
As the Democrats in Congress methodically plot against the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court works in unison against the Fourth Amendment. On January 14, the Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal searches may be used to prosecute criminal defendants...
Alex Jones' Infowars.com: Because there is a war on for your mind!


Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants
WASHINGTON — In a rare public ruling, a secret federal appeals court has said telecommunications companies must cooperate with the government to intercept international phone calls and e-mail of American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists...
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/w...er=rss&emc=rss



It's Two Israeli Companies Who Wiretap US For NSA (Democracy Now)
YouTube - James Bamford on Democracy Now! - 10-14-2008



"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
- Benjamin Franklin