What are you willing to do to stop Patriot III HR 418

[genius]

Poll question: What are you willing to do to stop Patriot III HR 418

Once this bill passes the Senate, there is nothing we can do to stop the death camps. It's anyone's guess when each of us will be dragged off but, if it passes and if we stay, it will happen. We will need to get our families and relatives out of the United States if we want to save them. Let's not let it come to that. What are you willing to do to stop this bill at the Senate level? Each and every Senator can stop a bill by refusing to be part of the unanimous consent agreement. There are more than enough of our guys for a filibuster.

Those that are not scared, don't know what's going on.

[IndianaGreen]

1. We are now at the point that we must use non-violent direct action

to disrupt the regime and its allies.

Here is some of the e-mail info being circulated in Indiana for the upcoming Midwest Peace Summit, March 19, at IUPUI, in preparation for our March 20 Peace Demonstration (more info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=151x1668):

All, I've received a lot of feedback since posting about the Nonviolent Direct Action Training Workshop that's being offered during the Midwest Peace Summit on Saturday, March 19, at IUPUI (Informatics Center). Given that the Peace Summit and the rally fall on the Second Anniversary of the War in Iraq, that weekend is a key time to express our outrage with the war and the Bush administration's refusal to end the war. In fact, we're probably on the edge of having a go at Iran or another country.

A good many agree that they are ready to engage in "direct action"," but aren't sure at what level: risk arrest, legal observer, support. Others are convinced that "we're not ready" for direct action. Some say they would like to participate but their jobs, relationships, children, health issues, etc., preclude them from participating. This tells me that the majority of everyday folks (and that includes a good many activists) aren't clear on what "direct action" really is.

There are plenty of people around us who totally oppose this regime's agenda of war and occupation. Let's try to convince those people who say, "There's nothing I can do," and more important, the people who are so angry and in despair (a word I have heard used in this context over and over since the election) that they can't or won't face the reality of how our civil liberties are being TAKEN from us -- or how the war in Iraq is just one horrible facet of the of the Bush/Cheney agenda -- to channel their feelings into ACTION.

A good many US citizens are unaware of what the constitution's First Amendment affords them. Many inner-city youth who find themselves in daily struggles with law enforcement and the court system DO NOT KNOW how to make their voices heard or even that there are appropriate forums for this. Many immigrants have not been in the US long enough to understand the power of the First Amendment. The list is long. After reading in yesterday's Indy Star of the ICLU's victory over IPD on a First Amendment case (in which I'm a litigant), one of my closest family members said, "You'll pay for that ... someday you'll need the police and you won't have them on your side." This family member (who is both "intelligent" and well-educated) still doesn't understand that we have rights for which we sometimes have to fight. Now more than any time than I can remember in my lifetime. And if we stop fighting for those rights we lose them. In that family member's mind, "I" still must have done something "wrong."

Regarding NONVIOLENT DIRECT ACTION: Let us be aware that there are differences between nonviolent direct action, nonviolent civil disobedience and nonviolent civil resistance. CD is only one form of direct action. CR is another, though similar to CD. Many are confused about the difference, especially those new to activism and opposition to the war in Iraq. We can encourage people to be in ACTION without suggessting that they break any written law. Understanding this and ACTING may encourage larger numbers of new people to join the movement for peace and social justice. Others still believe that there is a law higher than that written by man and they risk arrest because they believe in the higher law.

We are going to need trained peacekeepers and legal observers for the March 20 rally on Monument Circle. I encourage all who would like to take part in one of those roles to register in advance for the training by emailing me at ******* or phoning me at ******.

In Peaceful Resistance, *******

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. When did Patriot Act II pass?

Did any Senators vote aganst it? :shrug:

[thecai]

3. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act 2

I don't know when it was passed, but I do know Bush signed it secretly on a Saturday, immediately after Saddam was captured. Google "With A Whisper, Not A Bang".
BEWARE THE PATRIOT ACTS, THEY ARE A FARCE. They are no different from Hitlers "Enabling Act".

on edit: also google concentration camps in America. There are over 600 of them, already staffed.

[progressiveandproud]

4. I've already called around 30 Senators.

...and I'm gonna make the rounds of the remaining Dems and some more Repubs on Monday morning.

It is OK to call several times about the same issue? Maybe if I make a slightly different point next time, like that I'll consider telling my friends in such-and-such state (say, if I'm calling Diane Feinstein and we're talking about CA) to vote third-party or not vote at all?

Just a question from a budding activist. Thanks.

Oh, one more question: any advice on what to say to the 42 House Dems who voted in favor of enabling a police state (H.R. 418), in case I feel up to calling those sorry folks? Just express my displeasure tactfully?

Jonathan

[thecai]

8. Good Job!

Yes, express your displeasure tactfully, Jonathan. Keep up the good work!

[progressiveandproud]

11. Is Section 102 of H.R. 418 defensible in any way?

This is the provision in H.R. 418, the so-called "Real ID bill", which would grant the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to override any and all laws, without the possibility of being challenged in court, in the matter of improving roads and barriers in U.S. border-regions.

This provision is unconstitutional on its face, is it not? And if it is in violation of the Constitution, might it be allowable in the event of Bush declaring a "national state of emergency", or a state of "martial law"?

Forgive me if I'm in the dark, but does Section 102 have any sort of precedent? For instance, would the Patriot Act of 2002 -- even though, from what I've heard, it seems unconstitutional -- serve as some sort of precedent of removing checks and balances on the executive branch of the federal gov't?

Jonathan

[CatholicEdHead]

5. Here is the link to HR 418

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c1099tmtRc

[thecai]

6. Thanks, CatholicEdHead

Sad how they deceive everyone by making it look like a security measure against terrorism. Just like Hitler did with the Enabling Act.

[thecai]

9. Link?

It Now says "Please resubmit your search...". The link worked earlier.

[SoCalifer]

7. Don't EVER Give Up Your Guns

Well what the heck. I don't mind if this gets me flamed.. :)


First off, because I feel that our government is fully aware of what I will write below (about guns). People being herded into camps probably won't be done by blatant force per-se. Instead, it will come with the face of being the logical thing to do.

What I mean is: They will create some kind of biological or chemical crisis (real or simulated) and then offer their solution, which could be something like going to one of these camps, where they will have medical treatment and vaccines available, and after a brief quarantine so as not to endanger the rest of the public, they will lead you to believe you can return to your home - and of course after the area where you live has also been cleared. But once they have you there, you'll be at their control -- for your own good and the good of the public of course.

You may also see them create an outbreak of armed incidences from gun owners, with the news media working overtime to outrage the public until they demand the government to confiscate all privately owned guns. Then we'll really be defenseless.

---------------------

So, if you own a gun(s), don't ever give them up. I feel that it is the fact (as wisely intended by our founding fathers) that the U.S. is the biggest armed encampment in the world. And at last count of over 120,000,000 guns owned by over 80,000,000 citizens, even if unorganized, makes us an almost impossible force to seize control of.

I remember having a debate about this back with one of my political science teachers. He argued that today's military is just too powerful with too powerful of weapons for armed citizens to resist against. And I argued that the numbers of guns and armed citizens are just way to enormous for even our military to deal with. Current events in Iraq would totally seem to prove me correct. The Iraqis that are resisting the U.S. make up just a small amount of people compared to what armed American citizens could muster up.

[thecai]

10. Who Said?

"If we lose our rights by force, we can take them back by force, but if we give them up by default, we can never get them back."
:think:

[thecai]

12. kick