posted 05-02-2003 03:07 PM            

I wouldn't vote for Kucinich...although some things he believes in (alegedly) ring true with me.

The (D) or (R) thing doesn't mean $#!+ to me. I'd probably vote for Ron Paul. But, at the same time...I won't vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" that isn't a choice as far as I'm concerned. That's a one party system masquerading as a two-party system.

The democrats are on the inside wht the republicans are on the outside.

Both serve the globalists.

Ron Paul is the closest person to what could be called a Constitutionalist i've seen.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security".

posted 05-02-2003 05:33 PM            

Broad Domestic Role Asked for C.I.A. and the Pentagon

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/international/worldspecial/02TERR.html?ex=1052452800&en=
682d535fc0d83931&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

WASHINGTON, May 1 — The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations, officials said.
Advertisement

The proposal, which was beaten back, would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas — known as "national security letters" — requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval.

The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate today in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said.

After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said.

In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea, officials said.

There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected.

A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.

The official said that Congressional leaders had asked the Bush administration whether there were any additional powers needed to help combat terrorism. The administration responded with the proposal to give the C.I.A. and military the power to use the national security letters, the official said. Another Congressional official said the move came at the urging of the C.I.A. The White House had no comment last night.

Because the F.B.I. now has primary responsibility for domestic intelligence operations, the C.I.A. and the military must currently go to the F.B.I. to request that it issue a national security letter to get access to financial and electronic records.

The Bush administration believes that giving the C.I.A. and the military direct authority to demand the records would cut down on the lag time in the process and give those organizations more flexibility to combat terrorism, according to the senior Congressional official.

Administration officials played down the significance of the proposal, maintaining that it would not give the C.I.A. or the military access to any information that they cannot already get through the F.B.I.

But Democrats and civil liberties advocates said they were alarmed by the idea that the C.I.A. and the military could begin prying into Americans' personal and financial records.

They said that while the F.B.I. was subject to guidelines controlling what agents are allowed to do in the course of an investigation, the C.I.A. and the military appeared to have much freer reign. The F.B.I. also faces additional scrutiny if it tries to use such records in court, but officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal "dangerous and un-American."

Mr. Edgar said that "even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the C.I.A. such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens."

A Congressional Democratic aide said the measure appeared to go well beyond even hotly debated antiterrorism measures that the Justice Department has been considering in past months. "This is a very odd and very far-reaching idea that came out of nowhere," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It raises a whole series of questions about what the C.I.A.'s mission has really become."

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the C.I.A. and the military have assumed greater authority overseas over what were once law enforcement terrorism investigations, and the traditional lines between domestic and overseas operations have become increasingly blurred. A new terrorism center, led by the C.I.A., started operation today in an effort to better coordinate the activities of different federal agencies. Civil liberties groups said they were worried it would give the C.I.A. authority to conduct domestic operations.

The proposal to allow the C.I.A. and the Pentagon authority to demand domestic records comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans have voiced growing concerns about the government's expanded powers to fight terrorism.

New figures released today also showed that the Justice Department is relying with increasing frequency on secret warrants that allow the officials to go to a secret court to get approval for surveillance and bugging warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations without notifying the target.

posted 05-02-2003 05:42 PM            

He is YOUR FUHRER!!

YOUR FUHRER!!

YOUR FUHRER!!!

posted 05-02-2003 08:16 PM            

When did I ever say the government never lies? I've said more than once, in these foruns, that I don't believe the government never lies, and that I didn't support Bush.

Oh, but that doesn't work out for you does it?

posted 05-03-2003 01:22 AM            

Libertarian's are often on the ballot unless
those elephants manage to keep us off.
http://www.lp.org/

>The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:

-individual liberty and personal responsibility
-a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
-a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.<

***

Me:
The Libertarian Party was begun by principled former Republicans...
Immediately after Nixon imposed wage and price controls in peacetime.

"The most Socialist act ever by any President." -William Simon (R) Sec Treasury Nixon Admin.

until
the (*unification) "Patriot Act" suspended our Constitution & Bill of Rights)

Because we are disgusted with
the (present GOP)advocates of:
-big government-
-deficit spending-
-foreign intervention policy-
-strong central gov't police state-
-invasions of citizen's privacy-
-enemies of the Bill of Rights;

Who took over their party (the former Republican Party)
and made it subject to Sun Yung Moon's
*Unification church, as it has become.

(*unification of the worst of Nazism & Communism under the false banner of conservatism)

posted 05-03-2003 04:04 AM            

Oh..and thanks for your service Shatoga. Even though you might be wrong, and you may have reason for being cynical of government...I don't want to seem disrespectful of any Vietnam vets, because you deserve thanks. Unfortunately that war wasn't run by men like Bush who let the military rather than the politicians in Washington run the wars..If that had been done, if Bush was in command, there is no doubt that the Viet Nam war would have been over in a matter of months, we would have used overwhelming force, and 10s of thousands of brave American soldiers would be alive today. Unfortunately, Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks weren't running that war.

When one is presented with this realization, it becomes evident what an incredible individual this is and how lucky America is to have him as president. The Abraham Lincoln's crew understands....The affection they showed was genuine and is a universal sentiment shared among all branches of the military. Contrast that with Clinton who was loathed by those same armed forces. They knew the truth….

posted 05-03-2003 07:10 AM            

Nah...you can kiss Bu$h's corrupt @$$ all day if you want Fastwalker. To me it doesn't matter if there was a yuppie Gore face or a Bu$h face in the White House. Both deserve equal scrutiny. Both work for the globalists and the military/industrial complex.

I see through their illusion. It hard NOT to. Hitler rallied his people with similar stunts..and the people followed every word. The globalists use figureheads like George Bush or Clinton to "soothe the people" while they rob us blind at every level, reduce our rights, create fake terror, and send our industries to the third world. You want a New World Order? You are getting one.

Wrong? Hardly. I know in my heart of hearts that i'm right. America will slowly fade away into the sunset as long as the globalists have all the cards. It's happening right now.

Only someone completely BLIND with "Patriotic" fervor would believe everything is fine.

By the way Shatoga...

>have you ever seen "constitutionalist" on your ballot ?<

posted 05-03-2003 07:30 AM            

BILLIONS FOR "MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX": Bush promises unending war in Iraq and internationally

By Bill Vann
May 2, 2003

The speech that George Bush delivered on the USS Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln Thursday night constituted a warning to the world that the carnage unleashed in Iraq is the only the beginning of worldwide eruption of US militarism.

Bush used the flight deck of the massive US warship to issue a threat to “friend and foe alike that our nation has a mission. We will answer threats to our security and we will defend the peace.” Having elaborated a doctrine of “preemptive war” and carried it out in an illegal attack on Iraq, the US president left no doubt that his administration intends to continue using the American military power to assert US financial, corporate and geopolitical interests around the globe.

Bush made his appearance aboard the aircraft carrier in a navy flight suit. It likely marked the first time that he was in such a get-up since the early 1970s, when he joined the Texas Air National Guard to avoid the threat of being drafted into the Vietnam War and then went AWOL to attend Harvard Business School.

There was something pathetic about Bush’s play-acting as “Top Gun.” Swaggering about in front of ill-paid enlisted men and women who are bound by military discipline to applaud him, he could not hide who he is: a vindictive little man concealing his ignorance and insecurity behind a gargantuan killing machine.

Inevitably, the media went into raptures about Bush’s appearance. One cable news commentator described him as a combination of “the commander-in-chief and a rock star.” Another said he looked “dashing.” All agreed it was an “historic occasion.”

The USS Lincoln was a fitting stage for the celebration of the one-sided slaughter in Iraq. The firepower of the carrier and its battle group was undoubtedly greater than the entire military arsenal of Iraq. Aircraft flying off of the Lincoln dropped nearly 1.2 million pounds of high explosives on Iraq, wiping out untold thousands of defenseless Iraqi soldiers and civilians alike and wrecking much of the country’s infrastructure.

Critics among the Democrats complained that Bush’s choice of a carrier flight deck to make his speech on Iraq was a transparent political stunt aimed at creating patriotic imagery that will be flogged for all its worth in the 2004 presidential election campaign.

The fact is, however, that the venue was nothing new. For months, the US president’s speeches have been delivered almost exclusively to military personnel and employees of major military arms contractors. His flight to the Abraham Lincoln was to be followed Friday with an appearance at United Defense Industry, the California manufacturer of the Bradley fighting vehicle.

Bush has exploited these captive audiences to promote a domestic political agenda consisting of tax cuts for the rich to be paid for through the gutting of social programs—including veterans’ benefits—while portraying this Robin-Hood-in-reverse agenda as an act of patriotism.

A government resting on the military

At the same time Bush’s choice of audiences exposes an essential characteristic of his administration. Representing a narrow strata and corrupt layer within the American ruling elite, in particular the oil industry, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street, this government has come to rest ever more firmly upon the military to compensate for its lack of any genuine popular base.

Bush’s strutting about in military uniform, saluting officers and enlisted men and gloating over the might of the American war machine is a thoroughly reactionary spectacle. The choice of an aircraft carrier rather than the US Congress or the White House as the forum for his speech, however, also exposes the very real threat that the turn toward military aggression abroad is being joined with the increasing militarization of the American government and threats to basic democratic rights at home.

Initially, White House sources had indicated that Bush would deliver a “victory” speech. There was back-tracking on this description, however, with a new explanation that his remarks would only herald the end of “major combat operations” in Iraq.

There were several reasons for this rhetorical shift. First, having launched an illegal war of aggression, the White House is loathe to make any statement that might subject its continuing military operations in Iraq and elsewhere to the obligations of international law.

By avoiding any claim that the war is over or victory is achieved, the Bush administration hopes to ward off demands that it respect the Geneva Conventions and other statutes binding it to the existing laws of war. It is holding more than 7,000 prisoners of war in Iraq, prisoners it would be obliged to release if the war were officially over. It is continuing a manhunt for officials of the toppled Iraqi regime, a practice that would become illegal once final victory is declared.

Declaring an end to the war would also strip away the ridiculous pretense being made by Washington that it represents something other than an occupying power in Iraq—a legal term that also implies definite obligations under the Hague Convention. US officials prefer that its forces be referred to as “liberators,” a term that it hopes will cover up the fact that the US government has embarked upon a policy that is imperialist and colonialist in the classic definition of these terms.

In reality, of course, the killing is far from over. Pentagon officials acknowledge that there is no prospect of reducing the current number of US troops in Iraq—close to 140,000—for years to come. There is, in short, no “exit strategy,” but rather a plan for permanent colonial occupation.

Some of the greatest US war crimes lie ahead as Washington attempts to suppress popular opposition to its imposition of a puppet regime to rule the Iraqi people in the interests of the US oil companies, banks and corporations. The massacres in the town of Fallujah that claimed the lives of at least 16 unarmed demonstrators in the course of barely 48 hours this week are a taste of things to come.

And finally, as Bush made clear in his speech, the war in Iraq is seen by Washington as just one battle in a worldwide campaign of military aggression to be carried out under the pretext of a global “war on terrorism.”

“Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction ... will be confronted,” he declared, in what was widely seen as a direct threat to Syria and possibly Iran.

Lies to justify Iraq war

Inevitably, the speech was riddled with lies and distortions stemming from the fraudulent pretenses used by the US administration in launching the military aggression.

Bush claimed that with the destruction of the Iraqi regime, “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding.” Even the US Central Intelligence Agency dismissed the administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda. No evidence whatsoever was produced before the war substantiating such connections, and since occupying Iraq, US forces have yet to announce the capture of a single of the Al Qaeda operatives who were supposedly holed up in Baghdad.

Building on his unsupported claim of a link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, Bush went on to exploit the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq as well as future interventions. The terrorists, he said, “declared war on the US and war is what they got.” But no Iraqi was involved in September 11 and none of the untold thousands of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed in this war harmed any American.

“We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated,” Bush declared. He neglected to add the obvious: after six weeks in Iraq, the US military has found absolutely nothing.

Before the war, US officials from Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell on down claimed that American intelligence was monitoring scores of sites where weapons were kept and had hard evidence that chemical warheads had been deployed by the Iraqi military for use against US forces. Now with “major hostilities” declared at an end, not one of these sites has provided the evidence American officials insisted was there, and not one of the weapons allegedly placed in the hands of the Iraqi military has been discovered, much less used against US troops.

In short, Bush’s statements on the carrier Lincoln served as yet one more reminder that the US president deliberately deceived the American people to carry out an illegal and unprovoked war against an essentially defenseless people.

The biggest lie of all, however, was contained in Bush’s description of US operations and intentions in Iraq.

“We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country,” the president declared. “When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will.”

What is he talking about? As everyone knows, Iraqis are demonstrating by the hundreds of thousands demanding that American troops get out of their country. Where they have the opportunity, they are shooting at them. Washington has succeeded in recruiting as its principal collaborators the convicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi and other émigré swindlers.

Bush vowed that the US would “stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

There is not an iota of concern in Washington for the desires or rights of the Iraqi people. What Washington seeks is a regime of stooges, run by the US military and for the US banks and corporations.

The very day Bush made his speech, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the administration has drafted plans for the wholesale privatization of Iraq’s oil industry and other enterprises so that they can be taken over by US interests. Prominent US consulting firms have already been contracted to oversee this process. The real looting and rape of Iraq is set to begin. The only thing that Washington requires from an Iraqi regime is someone to sign the documents handing over the country’s wealth.

Given the real aims of the US war, Bush could as well have chosen the New York Stock Exchange as the carrier to deliver his triumphant address. It was in the interests of those who have made vast and largely illicit fortunes at the expense of society that this war was fought.

It was entirely fitting that as Bush was walking the deck of the Lincoln, seven top executives of the Enron Corporation, one of the administration’s principal corporate backers, were turning themselves in to authorities in Texas to face charges of fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and other crimes.

Together, these events reveal a social system that is able to sustain itself only through fraud and criminality at home and military aggression and colonialism abroad. It is a path that is leading American capitalism toward catastrophe and that must inevitably produce mass opposition among working people in the US and internationally.

NEW.... WORLD..... ORDER.........

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an OUTSIDE THREAT from beyond, WETHER REAL or PROMULGATED, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world LEADERS to DELIVER THEM from this "evil". The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting.

posted 05-03-2003 11:37 AM            

no problem just did a search...turns out mr.van is dumber and as anti-U.S as you...check this...he said it was going to be a bloody protracted war with mega life loss...said the U.S could not keep from bombing mosques and schools...(schools was where all the stock piles of artillery were)..anyway he was and is as wrong as you...

how does it feel to be wrong about everything ?

I must have missed this part of the war...

The press is seeking to convince people in advance that they should not believe what they will see with their own eyes -- the mass murder of Iraqi civilians by the US military

he was right about one thing saddam did use the people as human shields...

The obvious implication is that Iraq's military is prepared to use the population of Baghdad as "human shields," taking advantage of the Pentagon's supposed principled aversion to inflicting casualties on civilians.

http://www.rense.com/general30/dlsu.htm

posted 05-03-2003 01:25 PM            

Offering them citizenship, extradition, etc.
Rumsfeld did it again.

One other thing...

I knew EXACTLY why this war started and the reason behind it. OIL, CONTRACTS, and CONTROL.

NO WMD's have been found.

posted 05-03-2003 03:19 PM            

Untill the U.S. cut a deal with the Iraqi Military...most likely it was going to be.

man I've heard it all now !

I guess those hundreds of thousands of republican guard and such that are rotting dead in the hot sun cut a freakin' deal...

your a joke man...

posted 05-03-2003 03:32 PM            

I DEFINATELY believe that.

That why the war was so easy with a tiny amount of resistance.Hence...a much less bloody battle.

posted 05-03-2003 03:45 PM            

then why do YOU know about them ?

gimme a break I been trying not to be so hard on you but shit mech...look at the quantum leap straight out of reality you expect everyone to take...

secrets are not secret when the internet knows about them...

the reason the war was easy was overwhelming force, the best troops on the planet and the best equip...and of course tommy franks....

period

posted 05-03-2003 04:28 PM            

No one knew about the secret MAI treaty...A.K.A ("Free trade" over national sovereignty) untill it was LEAKED on to the internet. Hence THOUSANDS showed up in Seattle to protest the WTO in 99'

All because of "that damned internet".

Hence the MAI treaty never passed.

posted 05-03-2003 05:50 PM            

Atlanta Journal Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0503/02imminent.html

Jimmy Wynn fears the United Nations, a New World Order and government-implanted tracking devices.

Wynn, the commanding officer of the Militia of Georgia and a Lawrenceville resident, asks supporters to report to him specifics of large police activities such as roadblocks "or house-to-house search and seizures."

So when the leader of the paramilitary group started working last spring as a retail clerk at Southeastern Guns in Norcross, his position worried Gwinnett County police and set in motion a chain of events that shed a glimmer of light on the highly secretive state Department of Homeland Security.

The case illustrates the dilemmas that investigators wrestle with as the nation wages an ongoing war on terror: Who should police keep tabs on? What should they do with the intelligence they gather? And what is "imminent" danger?

The case started when a Gwinnett detective issued a classified "intelligence release" warning police of Wynn's new job, that he has "insinuat[ed] the use of violence against law enforcement officers" and often carries guns in his car. The report said the job would allow Wynn "to collect intelligence" on police, getting officers' home addresses when they complete federal paperwork when buying guns.

Wynn, 45, was not wanted on any criminal charges, the report advised -- just keep an eye on him.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation special agent John Lang, who was assigned as a threat analyst to the Department of Homeland Security, saw the memo and decided making note of the information was not enough. He called the gun shop owner and told him about the memo concerning his employee. Wynn was fired.

Wynn, who has been mostly unemployed since he was laid off from Lucent Technologies in late 2001, did not know why he lost his job until last week when he was told by a reporter. He said he has never advocated violence against the police or government officials.

He was angry when he learned why he was fired. He said he "was done plain dirty and the system is still trying to set me up in order to make their blunders look as though they have some semblance of truth."

Wynn's former boss, David Simons, said Wynn was a probationary employee and set to be fired anyway because of job performance.

About a month later, Lang, a veteran and highly decorated agent who investigated the murders of Buckhead socialite Lita Sullivan and DeKalb County Sheriff Derwin Brown, was reprimanded and transferred to another job.

Superiors said Lang violated agency policy by sharing the information with a civilian. Furthermore, Lang "more than likely contributed to, if not caused, the termination of a subject's job because of his association with a particular group with no evidence of a crime being planned or committed, and without consulting a superior, might well be more than society is willing to accept," GBI legal director Mark Jackson wrote in a letter.

Lang sees the issue very differently and is appealing the decision.

Lang did not want to comment for this article. But, in a letter appealing his reprimand, he pointed to the FBI's inaction before the Sept. 11 attacks as his motivation.

"This delay and sitting on information is precisely why incidents like Sept. 11 occurred," Lang wrote. "What good is intelligence if it is not used to alert innocent victims and prevent violent behavior or incidents?

Reprimand's impact

The reprimand could set a precedent, Lang said, that "will likely dampen other agents' aggressiveness in making decisions in a timely manner when time is of the essence to prevent an act of terrorism."

Lang also stated that affording intelligence to nonpolice is common: "Traditionally, we have had no qualms about sharing intelligence information with private security departments such as Georgia Power, Delta Air Lines and the Anti-Defamation League regarding employees or others suspected of criminal activity."

Wynn, who has been with the militia since 1987, said police have investigated him in the past and he goes out of his way to avoid any appearance of illegality.

"I do not discuss acts of sedition, violence, or any kind of activity which may be deemed to be illegal -- not even in joking," he said. "Am I concerned about roadblocks? You're damn right I am. So, do I advocate attacking [police] at checkpoints? No. As a matter of fact, I don't even carry a firearm in my automobile because I fear it would give the overzealous [police] an excuse to shoot me."

Don English, attorney for the Police Benevolent Association of Georgia, said the organization is helping Lang fight the case because of its broad implications.

"This is something important for law enforcement in general," said English. "This could be a sign of the time to come -- any officer who is proactive and effective is subject to have things placed under a microscope."

'Imminent' undefined

The key to the case, now before a DeKalb County Superior Court judge, is the meaning of "imminent" danger.

"By failing to define the word 'imminent' within policy, the Bureau clearly left this determination to the individual agent's discretion," wrote Steven Wisebram, Lang's attorney.

The GBI acknowledged "imminent" is not defined in GBI protocol, but wrote the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "about to occur or impending, about to take place."

Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the terms "imminent and inevitable often get interchanged.

"It's not irrational for this officer to do what he did," she said. "He interpreted this information like the president did on the war in Iraq."

She said police must make a showing in court to get a wire tap or a search warrant. But they are free to collect intelligence on people.

"In this country you don't need any showing to put someone under a microscope," Levenson said. "Because of people's fear and the need to make a difference in protecting them, [police] may be stepping over boundaries."

Robert Friedmann, a Georgia State University criminal justice professor who studies terrorism and security issues, said law enforcement agencies, most of whom are stretched for staffing, won't spend time collecting intelligence for the sake of doing it.

"You want to focus on leads that produce results," he said. "You don't want to be East Germany but you don't want to be fish bait waiting for the terrorists to strike. That's the dilemma of a democratic society."

About the question of how that information should be used or shared, Friedmann said: "My hunch is we're in virgin territory.

"It's not an easy call to make," he said. "It's not just a professional judgment. It's an art."

posted 05-03-2003 06:29 PM            

By Brett Thomas
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1260780&nav=0RceFacz

(Kalamazoo, May 1, 2003, 11:55 p.m.) While Iraq has some new found freedom, some say we're losing ours here at home. The Patriot Act was passed by Congress in response to the events on September 11th. But since then its drawn criticism saying it goes too far.

In Kalamazoo a group called the Task Force for Defense of the Bill of Rights discussed some of the liberty's it says Americans have lost due to the Patriot Act. They say it gives the government the ability to search your home without a warrant, and to spy on churches, temples and mosques without probable cause as well as a number of other infringements on basic rights.

The group hopes to convince the Kalamazoo City Commission to sign a resolution saying it will resist the provisions in the Patriot Act that violate individual rights. So far 97 communities including detroit have passed similar measures.

Representative Pete Hoeksta(R)Holland says the Patriot Act was passed to deal with new technology, and is meant to help give the government an edge in the fight against terrorism. He says he is aware of the criticisms and Congress is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the act. It is set to expire in 2006, at which time Congress will either let it end or make changes. Hoekstra adds that the protection of individual freedoms is one thing conservatives and liberals agree.

posted 05-03-2003 08:04 PM            

and con-man, foreigners have NO right to comment about U.S leaders...policy but not leaders...there's a lot of good folks in austrailia...you and your friends are obviously not any of them...