The Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, right?
Certainly not innocent people, right?
After all, holding an American citizen in jail indefinitely without charges, without evidence, based   more...on a "set up" is impossible, right?
Wake up.
Obama has done nothing to remove this anti-Constitutional "law" from the books and it's being used against innocent people right now.  less

From the HBO Show.

Janet C. Phelan`s Call 4 Investigation
Embedded in the U.S. Patriot Act is a section --"The Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute"--which is authorizing a mass depopulation ... all »   more...program, which will be deployed against pre-selected citizens of this country. This video contains the details of this project.

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/8296.php  less

Classic Alex Jones

Classic Alex Jones

Classic Alex Jones

the deny deny deny has snowballed big time

local internet providers are scanning your computer

Robert Dziekanski waited mor than 10 hours 4 his mother
when he arrived in Canada for his first and last time.
He was angry about this situation and didn`t speak english.
This all happend on the 14th October   more...2007 in Vancouver  less

Robert Dziekanski waited mor than 10 hours 4 his mother
when he arrived in Canada for his first and last time.
He was angry about this situation and didn`t speak english.
This all happend on the 14th October   more...2007 in Vancouver  less

The Patriot Act has become a magnet for claims that the government is violating our individual rights. In early December, the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks heard testimony   more...from several prominent law professors on the dangers of the act. Last month, Al Gore called for the act's repeal, accused the Bush administration of suspending civil liberties, and claimed that the government was using "fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use." Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has called the act "morally wrong," "shameful," and "unconstitutional."

Many cities have refused to assist the federal government in its implementation. Putting aside the hysterics, the worst thing about the Patriot Act is its Orwellian name. It creates no revolution in government powers, nor does it violate the Constitution. If the act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay for a valuable weapon against al Qaeda, a resourceful and adaptable enemy that is skilled at escaping detection.

The Patriot Act's most controversial provisions concern electronic surveillance of individuals who threaten national security. But the act did not initiate this practice. The system of secret search and wiretap warrants, granted in a secret hearing by a group of federal judges, without notice to the target, was established twenty-five years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was passed because before 1978, authorities could conduct searches to stop threats to national security without any judicial warrants at all. No court has ever found FISA to be unconstitutional, and just last year a special panel of federal appeals court judges reviewed the Patriot Act's central modification of FISA and unanimously found it constitutional.  less

It's a really good song by Phil Ochs Cops of the World
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html

Listen to our elected elite try to explain the Patriot Act, Which is treasonous! How many of you guys really know what the constitution says anyway! Don't worry I'm not getting discouraged I know you   more...guys take the time to watch my channel means you care about what is going on and its you guys(As well as our weak as media)that inspire me to press on "Thank you"  less

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the   more...records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.  less

The Verdict: Should Americans continue to sit back passively and allow the government to fleece away our freedom? - Judge Andrew Napolitano. This is a must see! Oh yeah, I still hate them(The Mainstream   more...media!) :0)  less

Believe what you want to believe,
your leaders & their medias are telling the truth !
(sarcasm-alert!)

Different People have different definitions

Some methods used by the CIA and military interrogators include using a scalpel to make numerous cuts on the penis of Benyam Mohammed, who was arrested at Karachi airport on April 10 2002, and flown by   more...a US government plane to a prison in Morocco. Other techniques include forceful beatings and even stomping which resulted in the paralysis of Sami Al-Laithi, a result of his detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Laithi is now confined to a wheelchair with two broken vertebrae. Images released from the Abu Ghraib scandal show the forceful rape, sodomy of Iraqi men, women, and children and include depictions of electrical wires attached to the genitalia of detainees. There were also images of dogs being used to attack detainees. Would it shock the American people to know that John C. Yoo, a Justice Department attorney who helped devise the Bush regime's doctrine of torture, condones even the torture of terrorists children to extract information from their terrorist parents.

When asked a hypothetical question in which the child of a terrorist suspect had their 'genitals crushed' in front of his father in order to extract information; Yoo answered there is "no law" and "no treaty" that would forbid such an atrocity, assuming that it was authorized by the president: "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that," Yoo said. How can an attorney for the Justice Department condone the torture of children, even terrorist children to safeguard the security of the American people?

We know through Seymour Hersh's work that the policy of torturing and sodomizing terrorist children had in fact been implemented because the Pentagon has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib to extract information from their parents. "[There's] a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher. Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking.... They are in total terror it's going to come out."

Manuals used by the U.S. Army's School of the Americas between 1982 and 1991 condoned executions, beatings and many other human rights abuses. John Yoo admits that he regards the sexual torture of children to be a legal and justifiable tactic, if authorized by the president. Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on December 7, 2005 declared: "The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle we once believed to be unassailable-the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person-is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror."

The world now knows that the torture of detainees was not a result of a few bad apples, but is and was a direct consequence of orders coming all the way from the President and relayed through the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to troops on the ground. Why else would Bush fight so hard to legitimize his administrations stance on torture and extraordinary rendition? He and the Vice-President had lobbied congress to exempt the CIA from the McCain Bill outlawing torture by US Personnel and when they failed; Bush issued one of his infamous signing statements claiming authority to interpret the law anyway he sees fit even if it means ignoring it. We know that it is the administration that was and is responsible for implementing torture on a broad scale.

Interrogators as well as detainees have made public claims that torture does not solicit valuable information and fearing such treatment detainees will admit to anything just to have the torture stop even a former U.S. Army Interrogator describes why "Torture is the worst possible thing we can do to detainees." Bush keeps citing the criticalness of continuing this CIA prog  less

Bush has stated over and over, "We do not torture detainees" and yet when Senator McCain, a once held prisoner of war, dissented against the White House position on the treatment of detainees   more...and together with the Senate passed a law outlawing the torture of detainees; Bush issued a 'signing statement' - an official document in which a president lays out interpretation of a new law -in which he reserved the right to ignore Congressional demands outlawing the torture of prisoners.

He claims authority as commander in chief to bypass any law, in context of broader powers to protect national security. Bush believes he can waive any restrictions which would impede his ability to protect the American people from the threats of terrorism. "The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President...as Commander in Chief... in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President...of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Bush had stated on numerous occasions not only that America does not torture detainees, but that America is not running black sites in which detainees are flown to some obscure location where the rule of law does not exist so that extreme measures can be used to excise information it deems necessary to protecting our citizenry. Having had the program of extraordinary rendition called into question by several federal judges, the White House has had to fess up to the existence of such a program. "I cannot describe the specific methods used - I think you understand why," Bush said during a 5th anniversary speech of the attacks of September 11th. "If I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary."

He reiterated his insistence that detainees have not and will not be tortured, claiming "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it." What the world and Americans do not realize is that what we the people traditionally consider torture, is not the same torture Bush speaks about since attorney general Alberto Gonzales redefined torture in a narrow context. The Torture Convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person".

The Bush Administration declares torture by a different standard, namely that, to constitute torture, the pain caused "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death." Methods generally understood by the world as "torture" would be permitted by this newly and narrowly altered definition. According to the new 'definition' everything up to the point leading to death is not torture as defined by the Administrations new policy. The redefining of torture, allows the administration to deny criminal behavior while still allowing the implementation and committing of such atrocities. This also gave CIA and military interrogators the 'go-ahead' to try many drastic measures considered to tough in previous sessions prior to the 'war on terror.'

Bush wants the CIA to be exempt from prosecution under the war crimes act for cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees and is now hard at work propagandizing the American public and Congress to have the Geneva Conventions modified. He knows that his administration has committed war crimes against humanity, which he and many members of his administration are liable to be prosecuted under according to international law. If he can exempt the CIA from such prosecutions then not only can they continue this sinister program of kidnap and tor  less

The National Security Agency reaches surprisingly deep into the lives of every day Americans.

My response and clarification of my positions on the 9/11 truth movement for TheCharmingDeviant over on YouTube.Some clarification of my position and me mostly agreeing with you on the major points.
Imagine   more...that you had some sort of cloud penetrating radar, (debris dust penetrating radar, since we're imagining) at the ready on that awful morning of 9/11. Imagine, being able to "pear" through the debris cloud and watch the interactions of the columns and the concrete floors and the reinforced stairwells in the chaotic collapse on each tower. As they fell, they were either being brought down by progressive demolition charges destroying the structure or gravity. It's either/or.
Only with something like my "cloud penetrating radar view" could you watch the actual substructures and floors fall. Since the debris cloud obscures everything as each tower fell, how can you claim to track, visually, some point or other with which you make the calculation of fall speed; and therefore "time" the collapse. I don't think we know "how fast they fell", they were partially obscured by smoke before, and then totally hidden by the dust clouds after; structural failure. That's always been my problem with the calculations of fall speed for the towers, all that can really be seen is wildly billowing dust/smoke clouds. The very top of the towers can be seen in some shots at the start, that we know. So when we start counting from the time of catastrophic collapse, to when the towers finished collapsing how much time is that? Depends on who you're talking to! I maintain that the "end-time" can't be seen (or calculated) behind the debris clouds. Make sense?  less

Lynn Pentz's short speech of the constitution and the rights of U.S. citizens in regard to 9-11

by Mumia Abu-Jamal / freemumia.com

2006 Net Neutrality, Patriot Act and Libraries