Karen
02-21-2006, 09:41 PM
Maureen's sharp as a tack. U know her work?
Detention Camp Jitters by Maureen Farrell
excerpt:
With the military stretched to the breaking point (https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/), questions of conscription and subsequent draft-dodging are hardly far-fetched, but the very act of protesting, in and of itself, could become a federal offense. Though conservative columnist William Safire was one of the first to warn of Mr. Bush's "dictatorial powers (https://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-08.htm)," and editorials across the country have since voiced similar concerns, few are picking up on attempts to criminalize dissent -- an observation made by former White House counsel John Dean as early as Oct. 2001, who wrote that, thanks to the hastily passed Patriot Act, the "right to dissent" is in jeopardy, with protesters possibly considered "terrorists."
Dean considered this an "unintended consequence" of the new anti-terror legislation, but the Oakland Tribune later reported that California's anti-terrorism intelligence center was already "blurring the line between terrorism and political dissent (https://fact.trib.com/1st.lev.inquisitionUSA.html)" and National Lawyers Guild president Michael Avery said that the Bush administration was "trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists (https://www.alternet.org/story/17826/) and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies." After a New York state jury refused to convict four Catholic antiwar activists for protesting at a U.S. military recruiting office in 2005, the federal government stepped in, filing charges including "conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States," which could send each protester to prison for up six years (https://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/061705/061705p.htm). Is this an isolated incident? It would seem not. Provisions in the new Patriot Act have also raised concerns. The first questionable provision could make "breaching security perimeters" at any "special event of national significance" a felony (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/31/hidden-patriot-act-provis_n_14779.html) while the second calls for the creation of a new federalized "permanent police force" which would be given the authority to arrest citizens in violation of the Bill of Rights. "The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events," former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote, adding that the law has "dire implications" for First Amendment guarantees. "We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo (https://www.vdare.com/roberts/060123_dangers.htm)."
Read the entire work here: https://buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html
Detention Camp Jitters by Maureen Farrell
excerpt:
With the military stretched to the breaking point (https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/), questions of conscription and subsequent draft-dodging are hardly far-fetched, but the very act of protesting, in and of itself, could become a federal offense. Though conservative columnist William Safire was one of the first to warn of Mr. Bush's "dictatorial powers (https://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-08.htm)," and editorials across the country have since voiced similar concerns, few are picking up on attempts to criminalize dissent -- an observation made by former White House counsel John Dean as early as Oct. 2001, who wrote that, thanks to the hastily passed Patriot Act, the "right to dissent" is in jeopardy, with protesters possibly considered "terrorists."
Dean considered this an "unintended consequence" of the new anti-terror legislation, but the Oakland Tribune later reported that California's anti-terrorism intelligence center was already "blurring the line between terrorism and political dissent (https://fact.trib.com/1st.lev.inquisitionUSA.html)" and National Lawyers Guild president Michael Avery said that the Bush administration was "trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists (https://www.alternet.org/story/17826/) and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies." After a New York state jury refused to convict four Catholic antiwar activists for protesting at a U.S. military recruiting office in 2005, the federal government stepped in, filing charges including "conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States," which could send each protester to prison for up six years (https://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/061705/061705p.htm). Is this an isolated incident? It would seem not. Provisions in the new Patriot Act have also raised concerns. The first questionable provision could make "breaching security perimeters" at any "special event of national significance" a felony (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/31/hidden-patriot-act-provis_n_14779.html) while the second calls for the creation of a new federalized "permanent police force" which would be given the authority to arrest citizens in violation of the Bill of Rights. "The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events," former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote, adding that the law has "dire implications" for First Amendment guarantees. "We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo (https://www.vdare.com/roberts/060123_dangers.htm)."
Read the entire work here: https://buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html