ACTIONS & UPDATES added for Wednesday, May 28, 2011
THIS WEEK: Call, email, get out the word, SHOW UP to help end Racial and Religious injustice and "Crusades" Against folk we've demonized at home and abroad before they've even received fair arrest, trial, prosecution, humane treatment while incarcerated. There is once again the old FBI and police treatment against Blacks and peace groups - with Muslims and Hispanics being added at an increasing rate. This trend is including draconion anti-immigration rulings in at least four states to date and more likely to be added soon. Those arrested under these new rulings could be teachers, good neighbors and doctors of those who are not for many necessary reasons (no job, no car, illness, fear, need for more time, family crises, etc.) are unable to complete documentation - which have increased tremendously in costs and complications.
Plz TAKE ACTION NOW – let your legislators know that you do not approve of these sneaky tactics such as those applied to appealing the NC Racial Justice Act (with parallels re. issues, tactics, populations targetted elsewhere to watch out for in each state.)
IF possible, come see for yourself. We expect Senate Bill 9 to be discussed by the House Judiciary Subcommittee B next Wednesday, June 1 at 10 am in room 421 of the Legislative Office Building and encourage you to attend. Please contact Amanda Lattanzio at amanda@pfadp.org or FAX/call 919.933.7567 with any questions.
Be aware of this crucial piece of legislation which has been solid now since 2009 in NC (we thought) yet NOW faces death - While directly affecting and addressing the NC Death Penalty - the ramifications go beyond death penalty to arrests and intimidation based on racial profiling with parallels and trends already affecting in areas religious profiling - particularly of Muslims.: GO here
May 27, 2011 ACTION UPDATE from People of Faith Against the Death Penalty (NC) What Are They Smoking? Last week, NC House leaders twisted the rules to help ensure an end to the NC Racial Justice Act.
Get this, Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam (R-Wake) rewrote a senate bill into one calling for repeal of the RJA. Senate Bill 9 was originally entitled "Make Synthetic Cannabinoids Illegal" and passed the Senate in that form. The bill was then gutted and replaced with language similar to House Bill 615, calling to repeal the RJA. If the bill passes the House in this form, then the Senate will not be able to change it.
TAKE ACTION NOW – let your legislators know that you do not approve of these sneaky tactics and do not want the Racial Justice Act to be repealed. Come see for yourself. We expect Senate Bill 9 to be discussed by the House Judiciary Subcommittee B next Wednesday, June 1 at 10 am in room 421 of the Legislative Office Building and encourage you to attend. Please contact Amanda Lattanzio at amanda@pfadp.org or 919.933.7567 with any questions.
People of Faith Against the Death Penalty
www.pfadp.org
110 W. Main St., Suite 2-G, Carrboro NC 27510
(919) 933-7567
Here's one place to go to let your NC legislators know your concerns UNTIL we post an updated list - this one will need to be adapted for the new proposed APPEAL and possibly for some of these legislators. I suggest letting the staffers know you represent __ people in your family and call beyond your usual district since this affects our entire state:
http://www.ncmoratorium.org/writeyourlegislators.aspx or CLICK here
Perhaps calling from out of state may also be of use like we often do when there is a person about to be executed. The execution of the NC Racial Justice Act RJA is not that different and the loss could well affect the loss of many in and out of NC as trends tend to spread.
BE sure to read: "So this is what a police state looks like?" originally posted May 21, 2011 and reposted by Common Dreams with lots of comments on May 28, 2011
=====================
Plz double-check before wasting time on the following with spot check on a site or two. These may or may not be current IN PART:
Cut/paste/edit and get out to your contacts the following link/info:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3195&s_subsrc=110511_aumf_ac
Helpful commentary (the US - ACLU is highlighted as the FIRST to be aware of the layered and worrisome issues.) http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/24/obama-administration-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-over-redefinition-of-aumf/
Whether too late or not, Obama may pay attention if we contact WH to let him know we like the way he's thinking on this one? And let's remember his words and HOLD him to this. AND, foolproof by calling legislators and getting out the word in whatever way works best for us on several levels (Connie)
For signs Obama may be talking from both sides of his mouth, see the UPDATE on Monday's post for Shannonwatch.com and related see earlier post http://oneheartforpeace.blogspot.com/2011/05/spotlight-on-human-rights-irelandus-may.html or simply go to Shannonwatch.com for May 25th
SEE David Swanson's post today:
Obama Opposed to Being Given Total War Power Wed, 2011-05-25 04:21 — davidswanson
Peace and WarThe White House has put out a statement expressing its disapproval of various bits of H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Here's the most interesting, if not the most adamant, objection:
"Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion."
And here's Section 1034:
"Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities."
This is language that would allow presidents to make war almost anytime anywhere. Obama's disapproval raises some interesting questions:
Will the Democratic leadership whip hard against this language, and against the bill if it is left in? Has Obama told them to?
Will Obama veto the bill if it is passed including this biggest ever unconstitutional reshaping of government powers, a move he "strongly objects" to?
If he doesn't veto it, will he signing statement it away? And if he does that, what will be the legal status of a piece of legislation that unconstitutionally gives congressional powers to the executive, a piece of unconstitutional legislation that has been unconstitutionally erased by a signing statement?
Will Libya and dozens of other current military operations be legal because signing statements are unconstitutional or illegal because Section 1034 is unconstitutional?
Does it matter, since the wars roll along regardless and impeachment is reserved for sex?
And, last but not least, if a member of the White House Press Corpse ever asks about this during a press conference, what size cell will that lucky person be locked up in?
Posted by Connie L. Nash at 9:02 AM 3 comments:
Connie L. Nash said...
Also see the excelling on commentary, insight and proactive alerts on FireDogLake.com
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/24/obama-administration-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-over-redefinition-of-aumf/Obama Administration Threatens Veto of Defense Bill Over Redefinition of AUMF
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Connie L. Nash said...
Plz watch the US military and WH from many different angles because they don't all fit together at all nor do the statements from the very same leader (in this case the US Prez who has set a new pact for cooperation with Shannon Airport and Irish leaders.)
KEEP WATCHING SHANNON WATCH DOT ORG
To see the folk we should be listening to who know plenty about the use of Shannon Airport for US Military Use and Renditions:
http://www.examiner.ie/text/ireland/kfojojgbidcw/
http://edwardhorgan.com/about.html
http://www.shannonwatch.org/page/reference-material
http://nomorecrusades.blogspot.com/2010/03/news-flash-handover-of-shannon-airport.html
=================
This one posted May 16, 2011 PLZ update any actions you follow in the Internet Blacklist Bill - these below may or may not be current and needed?
Shhh... We're not allowed to talk about it. The new Internet Blacklist Bill shows so little regard for free speech and Internet freedom that it would actually ban people from having serious conversations about the new Internet Blacklist Bill.
It would block "information location tools" from pointing to sites suspected of piracy. So that means that we couldn't send you an email just like this one with links to the websites that were being prosecuted.
Will you click here to urge Congress to oppose the ridiculous, obscene, draconian, PROTECT-IP Act?
It's not an exaggeration for CNET's headline to shout, "Senate bill amounts to death penalty for websites." They say the draft bill "would certainly sweep in Google, Yahoo, and search engines, and may also cover many other Web sites."
Please help us fight this legislation, which is far worse than the first Internet Blacklist Bill...
Thanks for standing with us,
-- The Demand Progress team
P.S. The new bill is a "death penalty for websites" and it's moving fast. Will you forward this email to your friends or share the petition with them using these links?
Here's the link to cut and paste
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs/?akid=631.305029.bMOEus&rd=1&t=1
OR
Click here
================
Possibly Helpful?
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2011/05/2011527114512723286.html
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/01/former-nsa-chief-called-cia-%e2%80%98out-of-control%e2%80%99
/http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/05/nsa-front-company-hooks-skype-into-big-brother-computer-network/
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/05/us-politics-of-fear/Search ResultsSurveillance Key Controversies Larry Abramson, Maria Godoy, NPR. FBI, Defense in talks about controversial surveillance technology - Shane Harris, GovExec.com ...
They have no vacancies at the moment...yet who knows later? Be aware of the danger of being a journalist these days and perhaps keep this on file for the right place and time?
http://recruitment.aljazeera.net/en
UPDATES for May 27 on:
ReplyDeleteHouse, Senate Approve Patriot Act Extension
Posted on May 27, 2011 by Bane Windlow
The Senate voted 72-23 for the legislation to renew three terrorism-fighting authorities. The House passed the measure 250-153 on an evening vote.
The measure would add four years to the legal life of roving wiretaps, authorized for a person rather than a communications line or device; court-ordered searches of business records; and surveillance of non-American “lone wolf” suspects without confirmed ties to terrorist groups.
The roving wiretaps and access to business records are small parts of the USA Patriot Act enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But unlike most of the act, which is permanent law, those provisions must be renewed periodically because of concerns that they could be used to violate privacy rights. The same applies to the “lone wolf” provision, which was part of a 2004 intelligence law.
Paul argued that in the rush to meet the terrorist threat in 2001 Congress enacted a Patriot Act that tramples on individual liberties. He had some backing from liberal Democrats and civil liberties groups who have long contended the law gives the government authority to spy on innocent citizens.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he voted for the act in 2001 “while ground zero was still burning.” But “I soon realized it gave too much power to government without enough judicial and congressional oversight.”
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said the provision on collecting business records can expose law-abiding citizens to government scrutiny. “If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end?” he asked.
“The Patriot Act has been used improperly again and again by law enforcement to invade Americans’ privacy and violate their constitutional rights,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington legislative office.
The New York Times
Who cares about civil liberties? Those aren’t important, right? As long as the government keeps us “safe” then it’s worth sacrificing as many of our rights as we possibly can, no?
You’d think that’s the case considering how sheepish the American people have been about this stuff. The Patriot Act, Kentucky v King, the expansion of TSA beyond the airports, etc. All of this going on right in front of our faces and all I hear are crickets. I guess everybody was too busy watching to see who would win American Idol.
Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Kay Hagan (D-NC) all voted for the extension. In the House the breakdown is below:
Those who voted to extend the act are below:
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC-01)
Renee Ellmers (R-NC-02)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC-05)
Howard Coble (R-NC-06)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC-07)
Larry Kissell (D-NC-08)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC-10)
Heath Shuler (D-NC-11)
Brad Miller (D-NC-13)
Tim Scott (R-SC-01)
Joe Wilson (R-SC-02)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC-04)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC-05)
Those who voted against extending the act:
Walter Jones (R-NC-03)
David Price (D-NC-04)
Mel Watt (D-NC-12)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC-03)
Jim Clyburn (D-SC-06)
Sue Myrick didn’t vote.
From American Library Association
ReplyDeleteNOTED Excerpt: ...consolation from the growing number of senators and representatives voting against the measure. The Senate passed the bill 72-23, and the House voted in favor of it 250-153.
By Michael Kelley May 27, 2011
After months of debate and delay, Congress passed a four-year extension of the Patriot Act on Thursday, and President Obama signed the bill into law just minutes before a midnight deadline.
The extension leaves unchanged Section 215 (also known as the "library records provision"), which has always been a serious concern to the library community. Under the provision the FBI can ask a federal court for access to "any tangible thing"---including library records---relevant to a terrorist threat.
"ALA is more than disappointed in the final outcome," said Lynne Bradley, the director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. "The library community has sought reasonable Patriot Act reforms since it was first prosposed in the fall of 2001, and this would have been another opportunity to fix some of the grievances we have. But Congress decided to punt instead," she said.
Bradley drew some consolation from the growing number of senators and representatives voting against the measure. The Senate passed the bill 72-23, and the House voted in favor of it 250-153.
The ALA and the Association of Research Libraries had supported a bill (S. 193) introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that would have increased reader privacy protections. The organizations also supported Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to "return Section 215 of the Act to its pre-2001 form, limiting surveillance under that provision to suspected terrorists and spies and restoring privacy to the records of innocent library users," according to an entry posted earlier in the week on the ALA Washington office's blog.
The associations had also been hoping for an extension until only 2013, instead of June 1, 2015.
Leahy apparently is not giving up the fight, Bradley said, already introducing the USA Patriot Act Improvements Act of 2011 (S.1125).
"The vote is both frustrating and encouraging," Bradley said. "I think message is getting out there, and senators Leahy and Paul, whatever other issues we might have with proposals they might make, really recognize the need to make these reforms to address privacy and civil liberty concerns. It is discouraging but at the same time nothing is ever over," she said.
Under the extension, federal officials will also still be able to wiretap unidentified suspects as they move about and use different devices, and the FBI can monitor non-American "lone wolf" suspects, even if they have no known terrorist ties (the latter provision was part of a 2004 intelligence act).
To Be Commended:
ReplyDeleteThose who voted against extending the act:
Walter Jones (R-NC-03)
David Price (D-NC-04)
Mel Watt (D-NC-12)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC-03)
Jim Clyburn (D-SC-06)