After 21 years the ACLU has pulled out of the Combined Federal Campaign. This program gives federal employees the ability to donate to non-profit organizations through payroll deductions. The Patriot Act requires that non-profit organizations in the CFC program must check employees names against a "blacklist" in order to receive donation money. Even though the ACLU is set to lose $500,000 the organization sees fighting the Patriot Act as a major priority.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, in a letter to CFC Director Mara Patermaster, said Attorney General "John Ashcroft and this administration have created a climate of fear and intimidation that undermines the health and well-being of this nation."
good for them. to lose all that money fighting such a worthy cause is really admirable. another public black mark for ashcroft and his cronies is always good news too.
John Ashcroft must be chuckling over this. He would have known full well that this kind of requirement goes against the principles of the ACLU. Yet another reason why the Patriot Act has less to do with fighting terrorists and more to do with repealing civil liberties.
does anyone know of an actual incident where the Patriot act has affected someone's rights? i hear plenty of people screaming murder but haven't heard of any actual rights violation?
lowenb said:
does anyone know of an actual incident where the Patriot act has affected someone's rights? i hear plenty of people screaming murder but haven't heard of any actual rights violation?
Lets think, a blacklist of names. Perhaps to look there for people whose rights have been violated.
That seems like a pretty detailed stipulation to put on a "national security" act. Do you think it was intended to screw certain liberal organizations out of money, knowing they wouldn't support that even if they could do it without revealing any potentially blacklisted individuals?
lowenb said:
does anyone know of an actual incident where the Patriot act has affected someone's rights? i hear plenty of people screaming murder but haven't heard of any actual rights violation?
Would you prefer to wait until it affected someones' rights?
When the RAVE Act was slipped in through the Amber Alert Bill, a simple crackhouse statute (don't own/operate a crackhouse) was changed so that any drug use on a property made the owners/operators civilly liable for $250k. Made originally to target electronic music (and pretty much scare club owners and promoters away from having shows), the language was so broad that any teenager smoking pot in his parents' house put them at risk. Other bills since have tried to impose criminal sentences (jail time) with similarly low burden of proof.
Within 3 months of that HIGHLY unpublic passing of the RAVE Act, a marijuana reform party fundraiser was shut down, with DEA agents coming as the party was setting up, threatening the hosts, and even the BANDS set to play with jail time, shoving copies of the Act in their faces. After the outcry, the directors of the DEA said they passed out ethics guidelines for use of the law, yet they refused to show to the public exactly what those were.
Better to protect peoples' rights before they're violated. If there's room for misuse, it's likely an inevitability.
lowenb said:
does anyone know of an actual incident where the Patriot act has affected someone's rights? i hear plenty of people screaming murder but haven't heard of any actual rights violation?
here are two that were reported on within the last week:
lowenb said:
does anyone know of an actual incident where the Patriot act has affected someone's rights? i hear plenty of people screaming murder but haven't heard of any actual rights violation?
Do you by any chance live under a freaking rock?
'Cause thats the only way I can imagine anyone completely failing to notice the federal DOJ/BOP investigation into same last year, the NJ DAG prosecuting people for cheating on the TOEFL as terrorists, the Misouiri DAG threatening to prosecute PayPal for money laundering, several southern states DAGs gleefully rejoicing over the idea of prosecuting meth labs under it and on and on and on. To say nothing of the fact that they have a fucking blacklist.
Let's start by giving a whole lot of extra abilities to law enforcement. Sure, they can do more....but the level of abuse rises too.
How do you feel about people taking pictures? Terrorist threat? Depends what....hrm. Well, let's say it's a tourist area, or an area known to local photographers, like the local locks...
He gets harassed not once (followed home, or rung in and then gone to his house) but also when he returns. Would it be better or worse, if it happened to other people?
ItwasDuke
New York, NY
March 2004
AUG 02, 2004 02:05 PM