Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
STOP TCPA!!!!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt
digg links, for the techie:
|
| ...Stalking |
| 11.30.03 (5:39 pm) [edit] |
Annually in the United States, 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate partner.
Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women. Women are significantly more likely than men (60 percent and 30 percent, respectively) to be stalked by intimate partners.
Eighty percent of women who are stalked by former husbands are physically assaulted by that partner and 30 percent are sexually assaulted by that partner.
|
|
|
| |
| ....Rape |
| 11.27.03 (10:28 pm) [edit] |
Three in four women (76 percent) who reported they had been raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 said that a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date committed the assault.
One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.
In 2000, 48 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed against people age 12 and over were reported to the police.
In 2001, 41,740 women were victims of rape/sexual assault committed by an intimate partner.
Rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers are more likely to be reported to the police than rapes/sexual assaults committed by "nonstrangers," including intimate partners, other relatives and friends or acquaintances. Between 1992 and 2000, 41 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers were reported to the police. During the same time period, 24 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed by an intimate were reported.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Domestic Violence and Children |
| 11.25.03 (5:41 pm) [edit] |
In a national survey of more than 6,000 American families, 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children.
Slightly more than half of female victims of intimate violence live in households with children under age 12.
Studies suggest that between 3.3 - 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Health Issues & Domestic Violence and Youth |
| 11.24.03 (11:16 pm) [edit] |
About half of all female victims of intimate violence report an injury of some type, and about 20 percent of them seek medical assistance.
Thirty-seven percent of women who sought treatment in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries in 1994 were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.
Approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.
Eight percent of high school age girls said "yes" when asked if "a boyfriend or date has ever forced sex against your will."
Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.
During the 1996-1997 school year, there were an estimated 4,000 incidents of rape or other types of sexual assault in public schools across the country.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Domestic Homicides |
| 11.24.03 (3:18 pm) [edit] |
On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.
Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.
Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause18 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.
Research suggests that injury related deaths, including homicide and suicide, account for approximately one-third of all maternal mortality cases, while medical reasons make up the rest. But, homicide is the leading cause of death overall for pregnant women, followed by cancer, acute and chronic respiratory conditions, motor vehicle collisions and drug overdose, peripartum and postpartum cardiomyopthy, and suicide.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Domestic Violence is a Serious, Widespread Social Problem in America: The Facts |
| 11.23.03 (5:28 pm) [edit] |
Prevalence of Domestic Violence
Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year1 to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.
Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.
Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.
Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.
Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.
In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.7
Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).
While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.
In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men.
As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy.11
Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate.
Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men.
The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1993 and 1995, 18 of 32 states with three year filing figures reported an increase of 20 percent or more.
Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner.
Taken from: http://endabuse.org/
|
|
|
| |
| ...Bush to open 8.8 million Alaskan acres to drilling |
| 11.21.03 (4:37 pm) [edit] |
Thursday, November 20, 2003 Posted: 9:45 PM EST (0245 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration intends to open 8.8 million acres of Alaska's North Slope to oil and gas development, including areas considered environmentally sensitive.
The Interior Department was to announce the oil and gas leasing plan Friday, the day the Senate was taking a critical vote on a massive energy bill endorsed by President Bush but denying him his top energy priority, opening an Alaskan wildlife refuge to drilling.
None of the 8.8 million acres are in the wildlife refuge, but they do include some sensitive areas in Alaska that are important for the protection of migratory birds, whales and wildlife.
Geologists believe the 22.5 million acres in the government's National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska may contain 6 billion to 13 billion barrels of oil. But it is widely scattered and costlier to develop than in the wildlife refuge.
Henri Bisson, the Alaska director for the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management, said the leasing plan would "maximize the production of oil and gas resources in an environmentally safe manner while protecting the important biological, subsistence and cultural values also found in this area."
Bisson, in a statement obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, said he expects BLM to hold a lease sale for selected tracts next June. The Clinton administration had opened much of the eastern section of the reserve to oil and gas exploration in 1998, but under tight restrictions with some areas fenced off.
Environmentalists said the plan, based on a proposal in January, would jeopardize Arctic tundra, lakes and ponds that provide sanctuary for wildlife and migratory birds but were set aside in the 1920s for potential energy development.
Charles Clusen, director of the Alaska lands project for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the leasing plan rewards friends of the Bush administration in the oil and gas industry.
"Instead of being a wilderness area," he said Thursday, "it will be an industrial zone subdivided by roads, pipelines, associated facilities, drill pads, maintenance facilities, etc., etc."
The Interior Department described its action as a compromise that will offer large areas for drilling, while cordoning off some sensitive lands because of environmental concerns.
The land is west of Prudhoe Bay, long-used oil fields on Alaska's North Slope, and also west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain that Bush and Republicans in Congress fought unsuccessfully to open. The coastal plan is believed to contain 3.2 billion to 11.5 billion barrels of oil.
Under the leasing plan, BLM would:
• Defer leasing on about 1.5 million acres of the reserve for the next 10 years to see if it needs more environmental studies.
• Protect from development another 1.5 million acres along the coast and in deep-water lakes and key rivers.
• Recommend creating a 102,000-acre Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area, a particularly sensitive area in the far western part of the reserve, that would be fenced off from leasing. It is known as home of beluga whales, spotted seals and the black brandt, a migratory wild goose.
• Designate special study areas for the black brandt and caribou.
• Conduct habitat studies for eiders, a bird whose existence is imperiled, and yellow-billed loons.
• Set restrictions to minimize loss of foraging habitat for raptors around the Colville River Special Area.
|
|
|
| |
| ...NY Times: G.O.P. Convention Has Police Alert and Protesters Planning |
| 11.20.03 (4:15 pm) [edit] |
by Michael Slackman New York Times, November 12, 2003
Police in New York City have been at work since June preparing for the Republican National Convention next summer, an event that could draw hundreds of thousands of protesters to the congested streets of Midtown while President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are in town.
At the same time, groups are busy planning protests, using the Internet and holding meetings to reach out to antiwar, anti-Bush and anti-Republican forces for the convention, scheduled Aug. 30 to Sept. 2. One group has even formed a committee to discuss details as specific as providing day care for protesters' children and pets.
The Republicans' decision to hold their nominating convention at Madison Square Garden presents the city with such a volatile mix of elements — an incumbent president, troops in Iraq, fear of terrorism, the existence of well-organized and active global protest groups — that the Police Department began preparations further in advance than it has for any event in a quarter-century, officials said.
Against this backdrop, the police are searching for a balance between the public's constitutional right to demonstrate and the need to keep the streets open, the trains running and the convention operating without interruption.
"We have the sense that there will be a lot of people coming in, not only from just in the United States but from outside the country, to voice their opinion," the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said in an interview. "So we want to be prepared."
An Internet search reveals that demonstrators are making plans for the convention, some with the goal of delivering a peaceful political statement, others hoping to have their say by disrupting events. Web sites have been formed (with names like R.N.C. Not Welcome and Counter Convention) and e-mail lists are being circulated so that people can exchange ideas about such strategies as how to tie up city traffic.
One group, United for Peace and Justice, has already filed two permit requests, one for 250,000 protesters to march past the Garden the weekend before the convention begins. United for Peace and Justice organized the antiwar rally in February that attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters, erupting at points into clashes between protesters and the police. The group is planning a peaceful march, but says that the convention could attract others intent on disrupting events.
"The resistance that the Bush administration attracts takes many forms, from people who might call or write an elected official to those who might sit down in the street and those who might want to resist" in more aggressive ways, said the group's spokesman, Bill Dobbs.
Mr. Kelly, like others preparing for the event, said he could not provide a hard estimate of how many protesters are expected. But the police are monitoring the Internet and the organizing groups, the commissioner said. They want to know what groups are coming to New York, who their leaders are and what their plans are, long before anyone ever raises a billboard or turns on a bullhorn. The police have created 30 committees within the department to address the myriad security concerns, including transportation around the city, safeguarding the 49 hotels that will house officials, delegates and news media, safeguarding the restaurants, theaters and other entertainment sites and making sure that officers are adequately trained to handle it all.
Mr. Kelly attends a weekly convention preparation meeting and is already talking about details as minute as whether law enforcement officials will have enough cameras and vans to process individuals who are arrested. In addition, the police meet regularly with the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Coast Guard and the Fire Department. There are also planned meetings with the mayor's office, the governor's office and the convention's committee on arrangements.
But the core of the work now involves research and intelligence gathering. "We're gathering information about plans that people may have to come here," Mr. Kelly said. "And we understand, this is what America's all about, people to demonstrate peacefully, make their feelings known. And we want to facilitate that and keep it peaceful."
The nexus of free speech and what the law deems to be criminal activity is a sensitive area, police officials concede. The New York Civil Liberties Union has already contacted police officials to try to meet and find the balance between the department's desire for absolute calm and the protesters' desire to be within the vicinity of the convention so that delegates can hear the protesters' concerns.
In 1992, when the Democrats held their national convention at the Garden, police set up an area on Eighth Avenue, on the sidewalk outside the nearby general post office building. When the crowds swelled, police expanded the protest area into the street, yet managed to keep one lane of traffic open.
But there were never more than about 5,000 protesters, a fraction of what is expected this summer, according to former police officials who were involved in security for the 1992 convention.
"If you have to deal with more than that, and people are violent, at that location, you will have a problem," said a former police official involved in the 1992 event.
In 1992, authorities also permitted a small group of protesters to set up on Seventh Avenue, so they could be seen by delegates entering the arena, former police officials said. This time the post office will be the main base for thousands of news media personnel, so the police suggested it is unlikely they will allow thousands of protesters to congregate right outside the building.
"Our concern is that the New York Police Department and the Secret Service will try to push demonstrators away from the convention site," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "We will mount an aggressive campaign to make sure this doesn't happen. It's critical that New York City be as welcoming to the protesters as it is to those who come to participate in the convention."
The easiest way to keep the peace, some officials said, is to seal off large areas of Manhattan from protesters. City officials have said that they want to accommodate peaceful protesters but are not sure how or where. Coming almost three years after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, there is also the fear that terrorists will try to strike during the event.
The federal government has designated the Republican convention, and the Democratic National Convention that will be held earlier in the summer in Boston, as national special security events. That puts the Secret Service in charge of coordinating security between agencies, gives the F.B.I. responsibility for collecting intelligence and providing crisis management, and gives the Federal Emergency Management Administration the job of dealing with the effects of any possible crisis.
But the New York Police Department, with its 37,000 officers, while working in conjunction with the federal agencies, will ultimately be responsible for controlling the streets.
As soon as it was clear the convention was coming to New York, police officials visited Los Angeles, which hosted the Democrats, and Philadelphia, which hosted the Republicans, in 2000. Philadelphia police had taken a very aggressive, what some have called pre-emptive, approach, and in some cases arrested people before they ever protested. In virtually all the cases, prosecutions were either dropped or the defendant was acquitted, said Stefan Presser, legal director for the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania.
"From the way the criminal justice process played out, it was transparently clear the city was far less interested in securing convictions than in clearing the streets," Mr. Presser said. Last February, the city saw perhaps a preview of what the convention scene could become. The group United for Peace and Justice had applied for a permit to conduct an antiwar march in Manhattan. The permit was denied, though one was granted for a rally. Hundreds of thousands of people tried to get into the designated area on First Avenue near the United Nations. While the police tried to funnel the crowd through designated access points, tensions rose and flare-ups broke out. For a city known for its control of crowds during presidential visits, sporting events, parades and celebrations, it was a public relations setback. Mr. Kelly said his department will be prepared to make sure that does not happen again, though he did not say exactly how.
"I'm not going to go into the specifics now and put all our safeguards on the table here because some of this is a tactical game that we're engaged in," he said. "You know, the vast majority of demonstrators here will be peaceful. They'll want to make a statement. And we want to help them do that. We want to facilitate that. There will be some, we believe, that will be here to cause problems."
|
|
|
| |
| ...Center for Constitutional Rights: Support Ashcroft's Removal From Office |
| 11.19.03 (3:10 pm) [edit] |
11-17-03 Center for Constitutional Rights Announces:
Support Ashcroft's Removal from office!
Express your outrage with the government’s wholesale rejection of civil liberties and support CCR’s campaign asking for the removal of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Since entering office, he has made it clear that he, along with the rest of the Department of Justice, is above the law. Ashcroft has continually trampled on the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike under the guise of protecting national security. He has enabled a widespread invasion of privacy, authorized the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without ever charging them, and has practiced extensive racial profiling. Ashcroft has shown disdain when confronted with his shoddy civil rights record, and is unapologetic about the various illegal actions that the DOJ and FBI have committed during their terrorist hunt. He deserves to be removed from office as a just punishment for his crimes against the American people.
To demonstrate your support for People v. Ashcroft, visit our website www.peoplevashcroft.org. We hope to gather thousands of signatures on our petition asking for the removal of Ashcroft. An eight-count indictment of the Attorney General, describing his crimes in detail, forms the body of the petition. You can write your Congressman asking for removal of Ashcroft. A bio of Ashcroft and an activist tool kit, detailing how you can support the campaign in your home community is also included.
CCR will officially launch the campaign on Monday, November 17 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. At the launch, the specifics of the campaign will be discussed, including the website, the petition, and what we expect to accomplish.
We hope that you’ll support us in combating the flagrant outrages of justice that Ashcroft has committed. Visit www.peoplevashcroft.org and document your anger with the Department of Justice. Tell all your friends, write your Congressperson, and do your part in reclaiming liberty.
Contact: peoplevashcroft@ccr-ny.org
PEOPLE -v- JOHN ASHCROFT, Defendant
CRIMINAL NO: 0001
2003 TERM INDICTMENT
WE, THE PEOPLE, CHARGE YOU WITH:
COUNT I INVADING OUR PRIVACY BY:
1. Taking advantage of our fear after September 11, 2001 to pass provisions of the USA Patriot Act which allow F.B.I. agents to come into our homes unannounced, access our medical, library, and school records, and monitor our internet and television usage without probable cause. Under your law, we have no way of knowing whether you or your agents have rifled through our drawers and peeked inside our hard drives, and even if we do know, you have prohibited us from challenging your surveillance in court.
2. Arguing that even with all the surveillance powers you have under the PATRIOT Act, you need more power and must now have the Victory Act to give you even greater access into our private lives by authorizing prosecutors to force us to testify and produce our private documents without judicial approval.
COUNT II VIOLATING OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY AND CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT BY:
1. Monitoring and investigating us merely because of the nature of our beliefs when we are gathered at churches, temples and mosques to pray, and when we join with others to protest or demonstrate against the unjust laws and policies promoted by you and your co-conspirators.
2. Expanding the definition of “terrorism” so far that we cannot donate to charities, invite foreign professors to speak at our schools, or represent clients without risking our lives and livelihoods.
3. Refusing to let us on airplanes subject to a secret “no fly list” that may or may not include our names, for reasons we cannot begin to fathom.
COUNT III VIOLATING OUR RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY:
1. Detaining us without charges or access to an attorney or a judge and leaving us at the mercy of brutal and racist guards if we happen to be non-citizens;
2. Labeling us “enemy combatants” without any proof so that you can hold us incommunicado in military brigs without access to counsel or our families despite the fact that we are citizens and thought the Constitution applied to us;
3. Listening in, when we are lucky enough to have access to a lawyer, in disregard of the importance our legal system has always placed on attorney-client confidence. PCOUNT IV VIOLATING OUR RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING BY:
1. Refusing to tell us where our loved ones and neighbors have been taken when our loved ones and neighbors happen to be non-citizens about whom you are suspicious.
2. Using secret evidence against us at secret hearings that neither our loved ones, nor reporters, nor the public can attend;
3. Classifying everything you can get your hands on, to keep us from the information we need to judge your actions and the actions of your co-conspirators;
4. Refusing to tell us how you are using the new powers you have taken even though Congress has ordered you to do so.
COUNT V DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US ON THE BASIS OF OUR RACE, RELIGION AND ETHNICITY BY:
1. Targeting those of us who are Muslim, Arab or South Asian and surveilling us where we work, live, and pray.
2. Destroying our Arab and South Asian neighborhoods by sweeping up our young men and placing them in detention, or making us come to your immigration offices to be questioned and fingerprinted and treated with disdain for the privilege of remaining in the country we too have lived in for decades.
3. Deciding that if we are Haitian, and come here seeking asylum, we must be kept in detention despite the fact that we pose no threat to anyone and only came here seeking freedom.
COUNT VI ATTACKING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY:
1. Refusing to recommend us for judgeships unless we pass your a ideological litmus test and show that we are devoted to your brand of ultraconservative, radical rights politics;
2. Monitoring our sentencing patterns if we are federal judges to force us to hand down harsher sentences at odds with our reasoned judgment and our personal oath to uphold the Constitution;
3. Ordering those of us who are United States Attorneys and prosecutors not to consider plea bargain, but to seek the death penalty even when we don’t find it appropriate;
4. Protecting foreign officials and multinational corporations that violate human rights despite a federal law, passed by our very first Congress in 1789, directing our courts to provide justice to the victims of international human rights violators.
COUNT VII INCITING HATRED AND INTOLERENCE BY:
1. Encouraging us to be suspicious of and turn in our neighbors if they look different, worship differently, or keep “strange hours;”
2. Telling us that anyone who disagrees with you is on the side of the terrorists and a traitor to this country when in reality, it is you who threatens our safety and our democracy.
Wherefore, we the undersigned call for the immediate removal of Defendant Ashcroft from the Office of Attorney General as a danger to democracy.
Deadline: Ongoing
|
|
|
| |
| ...A knock at the door, and Patriot Act becomes frighteningly real |
| 11.18.03 (7:55 pm) [edit] |
http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/le wis/archives/03/11/425646 34.shtml?Element_ID=42564634 " title="http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/le wis/archives/03/11/425646 34.shtml?Element_ID=42564634 " target="_blank"http://www.tennessean.com/opi...
Sunday, 11/16/03
Middle Tennessee News & Information
A knock at the door, and Patriot Act becomes frighteningly real The feds came with a subpoena:
It told Mary Lieberman that she would appear in U.S. District Court in Knoxville Nov. 17, 2002, with all of her files on her Iraqi-born clients, containing names, addresses, telephone numbers and all personal information.
It was a year ago tomorrow, and it was a day Mary Lieberman, executive director of Bridge Refugee & Sponsorship Services in Knoxville, will never forget.
''They wanted everything about everybody,'' Lieberman told me over the telephone Thursday afternoon from her Knoxville office. ''I think anybody who received a subpoena like that would look at it twice and bonk themselves on the head a few times and try to remember what country they lived in, and that's kind of what I did.''
The files the government wanted under the USA Patriot Act covered a wide range of personal things, Lieberman said. Her organization is an ecumenical, nonprofit group that helps refugees and people who have been granted asylum become and stay self-sufficient,
''Our files contain information about health and mental health, domestic violence, abortion, divorce, depression, family, non-self sufficiency, if you will, just everything.
''This subpoena to me looked like a fishing expedition.
''I don't like to use those words about my own government, but I don't see what else you could call this. And that is where our point of departure with the government was.''
Lieberman then got a lawyer to represent both her and Bridge Refugee & Sponsorship Services as the date to appear in federal court neared.
''We went to court after Thanksgiving as I recall,'' she said. ''The judge was hostile to our motion to quash the subpoena. He refused to grant our motion, but then he also didn't give the government everything either. He just declined to rule, but he did say, 'You two sides get together and figure out a way that you, Bridge, are going to give them, the U.S. attorney, your records.' ''
Lieberman said she and her attorney agreed that ''I would turn over names, addresses and phone numbers and that they would give me a chance to delete all the pages of information that I deemed to be personal.''
''They agreed to that with the stipulation that this was not a binding agreement … that they could come back at a later time of their choosing and demand the rest of my stuff with another subpoena.''
That's when Lieberman learned about Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section allows the government to ''come back with a different kind of subpoena that is so powerful that I wouldn't be able to file a motion to quash.''
''The government has gone way too far,'' Lieberman told me. ''It's outrageous. And, I think it's up to advocates for the foreign-born to stand up and say so.''
That's why Lieberman's organization has also decided to become a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
''That is a part of the Patriot Act that calls for a secret court that allows judges to sign subpoenas that say if the target refuses the subpoena or declines to produce the information, the subpoena essentially becomes a search warrant and the person has no recourse,'' Lieberman said. ''They must turn the stuff over, no motion to quash, give us your stuff or go to jail essentially.
''That's just not the America that I grew up in.''
Since going to court last year, Lieberman and her agency have decided to get rid of their clients' documents as soon as it's legally permissible.
''We have to keep them for three years after the date of the last service,'' she said. ''We used to keep files because we liked to have them as an archive.
''We don't do that any more.''
Meanwhile Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed the lawsuit challenging Section 215 of the Patriot Act on behalf of Bridge and at least four other organizations, said she is confident the government's motion to dismiss the suit will not take place when a hearing is held on the matter Dec. 3 in Detroit.
''It is so clear from the powerful affidavits that we've put in from people such as Mary Lieberman that this law has already really harmed a lot of people in this country by making them afraid to say what they want and to go to their place of worship,'' Beeson said.
And, she added that ''it is so striking what is happening now is so similar to what happened in earlier periods of American history.''
One of those, she said, occurred in the South during the days of the civil rights movement when some state and local officials attempted to shut down the NAACP by threatening to expose the organization's membership lists.
Surely, the government won't try and take us back to those days.
Dwight Lewis is a columnist, regional editor and member of the editorial board for The Tennessean. E-mail: dlewis@tennes-sean.com.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Demand NYPD Stop Harrassment of Mother Seeking Justice |
| 11.17.03 (2:19 pm) [edit] |
COMMUNITY GROUPS DEMAND NYPD STOP HARASSMENT OF MOTHER SEEKING JUSTICE FOR THE MURDER OF HER SON BY POLICE
NEW YORK, NY--On Monday, November 17th at 8:30 a.m., the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, the Justice Committee, the Haitian Coalition for Justice and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, along with community and religious leaders and the Puerto Rican Nationalist Youth of New York, will rally in front of Bronx DA Robert Johnson’’s office, 198 East 161st Street (off of the Grand Concourse) in the Bronx to demand that he drop criminal trespassing charges against a disabled mother, illegally evicted in June from her home of six years.
Following the rally, the mother, Juanita Young, will appear for the third time in Bronx Criminal Court with noted civil rights attorney, Lynne Stewart. "This is a case that is not criminal in nature," said Stewart. "The people who should be arrested--the cops and the landlord--they’re going free, and Juanita, a victim, should be treated with the utmost respect. . . .This is mother who lost her child to their errant gunplay, and she should not be subjected to this."
Juanita Young’s 21-year-old son, Malcolm Ferguson, was shot in the back of the head at point blank range on March 1, 2000 while in police custody. Police reports claim officers "struggled" with the unarmed man and the gun "accidentally discharged." But witnesses dispute this claim, asking how Malcolm could have been shot in the back of his head if this version were true. Since her son’’s death, Juanita has never given up the fight for justice, joining with other victims of police abuse to call for accountability and an end to what many view as a continuing assault on communities of color that has reached epidemic proportions.
At 7:25 am, on Saturday, June 7, 2003, in an unprecedented attempt to silence Juanita’s vocal criticism, officers of the 40th Precinct (accompanied by the landlord) woke Juanita out of her sleep by knocking their clubs against her bed. Despite the fact that the City Marshal had earlier refused to evict Juanita because she is legally blind, police arrested the startled woman for trespassing in her own home! Making no provisions for the care of her 3 children, police then shoved her out of the building and into a waiting police car. On the way down, arresting officer Louis Hernandez (Badge#25471) kept prodding the handcuffed woman, telling her to hurry up. Juanita, unable to clearly see the stairs, fell down twice, fracturing her hand on the second fall. At one point in her ordeal, a policeman said, "No rallies for you today." When the terrified mother insisted on medical care, her charges turned from a simple summons to "criminal trespassing."
|
|
|
| |
| ..it matters |
| 11.16.03 (5:01 am) [edit] |
Flu kills an average of 36,000 people in the U.S. every year.
That's more people than are killed by drunk drivers or gunshots. But unlike those calamities, flu can be prevented by a yearly vaccination. Despite widespread promotion of flu shots, immunization levels remain dismal even among high-risk populations. Less than 25 percent of people under 50 who suffer from chronic illness or have weakened immune systems get vaccinated. Among those over 65, a third go unprotected.
According to University of Pittsburgh preventive medicine expert Dr. Richard Zimmerman, many fear the vaccine itself will make them sick. "But the viruses in flu shots are dead. They can't cause any kind of illness," he says. "It's especially tragic for a person to die of a disease that can be prevented by vaccination."
by Lynne Warren
Taken directly from the Nov. 2003 National Geographic
|
|
|
| |
| ...ColorLines RaceWire: Patriot Peril |
| 11.14.03 (9:07 pm) [edit] |
Myths about the Patriot Act and how it affects the black community are downright deadly. A potent myth is that the Patriot Act only affects a tiny number of Arabs and Muslims who were rounded up immediately after Sept. 11. Some lament that immigrants are grabbing attention away from the problems of civil rights abuses and police violence against blacks. In reality, however, the Patriot Act is not a shift, but a dangerous extension of unjust policies and practices that put all people of color in jeopardy, even blacks.
We are not talking about a handful of highly scrutinized suspects here, but whole communities that have been victimized in the name of "national security." Eighty-two thousand men from 24 Muslim countries were required to register with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Some 13,000 were detained and face deportation for minor or technical violations, such as failure to report a change of address.
Thousands more have become targets of hate crimes, fired from their jobs, interrogated by the FBI without a lawyer present, and jailed or deported due to INS bureaucratic snafus. Blacks know that you don't have to be a "foreigner" to be labeled an enemy of the state. So laws that imprison individuals without stating a clear charge or providing access to an attorney send up red flags.
Lost in this debate is the plight of black immigrants, who also suffer from unjustified detention and deportation. For example, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft used the "national security" rationale to justify the indefinite detention of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum. His order had nothing to do with whether the immigrants themselves are dangerous. Ashcoft's twisted logic is that detaining Haitians would discourage others from coming to America, thus preventing the diversion of Coast Guard resources from homeland security initiatives.
When I step a bit closer to the situation, as a black woman I am alarmed to see familiar abuses taken to a whole new level. The story of Abraham, a Sudanese refugee in San Jose, California illustrates the chilling link between the Patriot Act and racial profiling as we know it. Ironically, he was on the way to the INS office to collect papers that would prove to his employer that he was in the country legally, when he was stopped for driving while black. Facing the barrel of drawn police guns, he realized, "they thought I was Black American." Police did not give Abraham a ticket for speeding, but extensively questioned him about his immigration status.
Most important, the atmosphere in which the government has expanded its powers makes cops even bolder about racial profiling. Kenny Dukes, a young African American man was killed by Chicago police officers in August. Dukes had returned home from a picnic with his girlfriend and was walking to the front door when the officers yelled at him to stop. Not realizing that they were calling him, he continued walking with his back to the street. Although there was no warrant for his arrest and Dukes was not carrying a weapon, they shot him seven times in the back.
The good news is that communities across the country are exploding myths around the Patriot Acts and making these connections. At public hearings in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, San Jose and Alameda, California, immigrant and black leaders are standing together to take on government-sanctioned racial profiling.
This is not a new struggle. The black community knows that the same racist fervor that inspired the recent shootings of Sikh cab drivers in Richmond, California also led to the dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas. The system that proposed asking people to turn in their neighbors using vague definitions of a "suspect" though the TIPS program (Terrorist Information Prevention System), is the same one that targeted African American leaders through COINTELPRO. The targeting of whole communities through the Patriot Act is not just an "Arab thing" or a "Muslim thing." It's also a "black thing."
By Tammy Johnson, ColorLines RaceWire November 10, 2003
Tammy Johnson is director of the Race and Public Policy Program at the Applied Research Center.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Village Voice: State Law Would Pin the T-word on Animal Rights and Eco Protesters |
| 11.13.03 (3:57 pm) [edit] |
More than fur would fly when animal rights activists and, perhaps, environmental groups mount protests in New York, under a new law proposed by an upstate legislator: Protesters would be considered "terrorists."
New York is one of several states currently considering legislation that could define certain animal rights and environmental groups as terrorist organizations. The sponsor of the bill, Assembly Member Richard Smith, a Democrat from the Buffalo suburb of Blasdell, says it was written to curtail the activities of extremists who "bomb research labs and torch ski camps." Opponents of the bill point out that much of the wording of bill A4884 (and a companion bill in the state senate) was lifted directly from language created by the American Legislative Exchange Council, an influential conservative D.C. lobby.
ALEC's model legislation, drawn up by its "Homeland Security Working Group," is called the Animal and Ecological Terrorist Act, and it ostensibly focuses solely on groups like Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which have attacked homes and development projects that threatened the habitat of several species. But more mainstream groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), are also targeted by ALEC as a "threat," and the bill would back that up with severe action.
For activists, the danger lies in how A4884 defines "terrorist" organizations, as "any association, organization, entity, coalition, or combination of two or more persons with the primary or incidental purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity through intimidation, coercion, fear, or other means." Activist groups fear that lawful dissent, such as demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, and leafleting, might fall into any one of those categories, particularly the catchall phrase "other means." The bill also seeks to prohibit people from gathering photographic or videotaped evidence of illegal or harmful activities, effectively shutting down the camcorders and other tools used by 21st-century protesters. Additionally, the bill calls for the creation of a state-run website where people convicted of "eco-terrorism or animal-rights terrorism" would be identified with photographs and stigmatized, much as states do with child molesters.
Some version of the bill may make it to the general assembly floor, perhaps not until 2004, but PETA takes it seriously. "There are already numerous laws on the books to prosecute activists who cross the line, like trespassing, breaking and entering, and burglary," says PETA general counsel Jeffrey Kerr. "This bill is clearly aimed at stifling opposition to animal and environmental exploitation by companies that make a living from it."
Assemblyman Smith insists that the bill doesn't threaten First Amendment rights. "My bill in no way aims to stop picketing or leafleting," he says, "but there are some radicals out there who consistently brag that they've started fires and destroyed property, and they've got to be penalized. Those radicals are the ones I'm looking for."
Other states considering the legislation are Ohio, Oregon, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. Oklahoma enacted such a bill last spring, but similar legislation introduced in Texas recently died in committee. In New York, ALEC established a beachhead through the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, one of several powerful pro-hunting groups active in upstate areas. ALEC, says spokesman Bob Adams, talked about the legislation with the hunting lobby, and Smith says the hunters talked about it with him.
Kerr and other lawyers contend that the animal- and eco-rights movements already are in the crosshairs of the Bush administration. At the moment all eyes are on Greenpeace, which ran afoul of the Department of Justice last year after two activists boarded a boat carrying wood that Greenpeace says was illegally exported from the Amazon and hung banners over the side that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." For that act, Greenpeace has been charged with violating an obscure and ancient "sailormongering" law that prohibits unauthorized persons from boarding a boat before it's moored.
And when it comes to proposed laws like the one being considered in New York, ALEC has the administration's ear. Its annual meeting this past July in D.C. drew such speakers as Vice President Dick Cheney and Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The group gave Cheney its Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award, praising him for his "commitment" to "individual liberty." Cheney told the gathering of more than 2,000 legislators and others, "We will not wait in false comfort while terrorists plot against innocent Americans. We will not permit outlaw states and terror groups to join forces in a deadly alliance that could threaten the lives of millions of Americans."
by Ginger Adams Otis
November 12 - 18, 2003
|
|
|
| |
| ...The Myth of Free Speech |
| 11.12.03 (5:15 pm) [edit] |
The United States Constitution is a notoriously vague and laconic document, and those who have amended it have taken pains to do so with the same parsimonious language exemplified by the original. In fact, in the very first of its many adjustments, only 10 words were added to – if we may indulge in a bit of Bush-speak – "codify" the fact that Americans have the right to mouth off at will: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."
These 10 simple words have given rise to a rather dangerous misconception, especially when the expression "freedom of speech" is truncated to simply "free speech," creating an unfortunate double entendre. "Free speech," of course, means speech without constraint, as in liberated speech, but it also means speech without cost, as in, well, free speech.
The idea that one can speak out with impunity, with no fear of costly consequences, is true in proportion to the powerlessness of the speaker. When Janis Joplin hoarsely intoned that "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose," she certainly hit cultural pay dirt – the truly free are those on the bottom rung of the ladder, whose voices, it seems, are never heard. That, however, doesn't prevent, at least here in America and even in places like Bolivia of late, these "unhearables" from trying.
In a nugget of ironic-doublespeak gold, the U.S. Secret Service has created something called "Free-Speech Areas," meaning locations where protestors and other lowly types of citizenry are corralled so that President Bush and other members of his coterie need not be disturbed or inconvenienced by this "free speech" thing, since the people exercising their First Amendment right find themselves out of the Commander-in-Chief's earshot. After all, the Constitution said they had a right to speak their minds, but remained typically mute on whether or not anyone might be obligated to listen.
Mr. Bill Neel, a retired Pittsburgh steelworker unhappy with Bush's stewardship of the economy, said it better than I can: "I thought the whole country was a free-speech area." Well, Bill, as we all eventually come to learn, it is and it isn't.
If a tree falls in the forest, the saying goes, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The Secret Service thinks not, apparently, and does its best to isolate its charge from all such disagreeable thuds, lest he begin to understand that his so-called "compassionate conservatism" is pauperizing some Americans while leaving others blown apart in the sand half a world away.
My molecules may not have been assembled until well after 1941, but I think it's fair to assume that once Tojo's warplanes turned Pearl Harbor into a blazing graveyard, a lot of voices were left unheard as American citizens of Japanese ancestry were herded off to the desert and the rail lines leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau were left in tact because Roosevelt had other, more pressing priorities. A similar situation exists today in the aftermath of the attacks on Washington and lower Manhattan, with the government not only turning a deaf ear to anti-war protesters here and abroad (protesters always get the deaf ear, except perhaps when Nixon chatted with a few of the "bums" across from the White House), but also consolidating its power under the Patriot Act to maintain greater vigilance over suspected subversives. All a President has to do, really, is, in election season, convince a bit over half the electorate (or not even that, given the events of 2000) that dissenting voices are unpatriotic, and he is free to go about his duties insulated from the public at large. Press conferences are not required here in the States, so Presidents make a lot of rehearsed addresses and decide willy-nilly when they're ready to answer a few questions, walking off behind the iron draperies at will.
To repeat: Presidents must convince the electorate that dissenting voices are unpatriotic. Or at least, Republican presidents do that, though I must admit that under the reign of Lyndon Johnson, the Democrats did their share of demonizing, too. Still, it is Republicans who claim to have a much clearer idea of what patriotism is, and who have no qualms about being belligerent and exclusive in their "love" for the U.S. of A. They are quick, especially during this open-ended war on terror, to paint critics as un-American, as if only they themselves were the arbiters of what constitutes a love of country. Because of this, they get caught saying some pretty outrageous things, and often get away with it, though not always.
When Trent Lott told the late Strom Thurmond that if the country had bought into the centenarian senator's 1948 vision of racial segregation, we'd be better off today, he lost his job as Senate Majority Leader. When Rush Limbaugh said the media was bending over backwards to see a black quarterback succeed – why, the very idea – he was forced to resign from ESPN.
See? Like I was saying, in the mouths of the powerful, speech never comes free – when you have a voice that does get heard, what you say has a definite price.
But that doesn't mean there aren't numerous other outbursts that go for bargain rates. Washington State Republican Representative George Nethercutt, Jr., said recently that, regarding Iraq, "The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."
He should get active duty in Karbala for a statement like that. To my knowledge, he wasn't even censured. Free speech? Let's just hope no American family who has lost a son or daughter heard that obscene remark, or they would have certainly paid quite a mark-up in grief.
And then there's "Old Faithful" Pat Robertson who suggested that if he "could just get a nuclear device inside [the State Department,]" that might be a way of making war on the war against the so-called war on terrorism. "We've got to blow that thing up," he added. Now that is definitely free speech, in the sense that Robertson was completely free to stick his sanctimonious foot far into his maw, but last I heard, he was still sitting in the Chairman's seat at the Christian Broadcasting Network.
His brother of equally suspect "orals," Jerry Falwell, has even more legroom between his enamel. "Muhammad was a terrorist," he declared, setting off a minor firestorm of protest from those few not afraid to stick up for Muslims these days. Add this to his post-September 11 assessment that pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians and the ACLU helped guide Osama's disciples to their targets and you have one hell of a loose cannon who nevertheless continues to hold some kind of employment when perhaps he might be better off preaching to the choir at Bellevue.
More recently, a born-again Lieutenant General by the name of William Boykin has been making the rounds of evangelical Christian churches for the purpose, it seems, of demonizing Islam, declaring that the war on terror is "a battle against Satan" and suggesting that, to paraphrase the old dog food commercial, "my God is better than your God." He even let slip that he believes God put Bush in the White House (given the current mess in Iraq, he might want to specify which God he's talking about). It's all very well and good that the President flits around the world insisting we are not crusading against Muslims per se, but when the people under him spout off to the contrary, well, it seems no disciplinary action is taken. Ever cognizant of that all-important hardcore Christian vote, even scrappy ol' Rumsfeld puts on the velvet gloves to deal with Boykin's babblings. Now just imagine if some top brasser under Clinton had hopped about the country suggesting that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gay soldiers was unconstitutional and a desecration of all the liberties the armed forces are sworn to defend. The Pentagon goodfellas would have been quick to see that their Democratic boss expelled the transgressor immediately, whereas, in Boykin's case, we've seen no such outcry at all. This can only suggest, to us and the rest of the world, that Boykin's vision of today's world is not, at least in the eyes of our military and perhaps the Administration, so far-fetched after all.
In America at present, it's the warriors and the worshippers who are calling the shots (worshippers of the "real" God, that is).
Perhaps that's why Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam was ill-advised to play rough on stage with his Dubya mask. And why the Dixie Chicks almost ignited a civil war when they publicly lamented the President's geographical ancestry. And why Michael Moore was soundly booed at the Oscars for denouncing the Operation Iraqi Freedom. And "lefty" Tim Robbins saw the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame cancel a tribute to the film "Bull Durham" in which he starred as pitcher "Nuke" LaLoosh.
It makes you wonder if there was ever a time when opposing government policies was not a costly thing to do. I don't think so. The Hollywood Ten tried it, as did three young civil rights activists in Mississippi, and some kids at Kent State, and – well, you get the idea.
Speech is never quite free, no. But the price has a lot to do with how radically the message clashes with the prevailing state-of-thought. Eminem had plenty of disparaging things to say, but it failed to slow his ascension one iota. Thabo Mbeki could deny for years that HIV causes AIDS, and get away with it, because apparently it was something the people felt comforted to hear. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, just the other day, declared that "Jews rule the world by proxy," and was roundly applauded, indicating that his sentiments, at least to many in the Islamic realm, are hardly extreme.
People rarely speak in a vacuum, and left or right, no matter what they say, their comments often reflect a "truth" that, for better or worse, needs to be exhumed. That's one value of free speech, in its liberating sense. But when it comes to free speech as it relates to "cost," then always some will pay a higher price than others. Today, under the present reign of anti-terror, the cost has been considerably higher for those critical of the nation's present course. But as American soldiers continue arriving home in boxes at Dover Air Force Base, and the cost of Americanizing the Middle East grows even steeper, and the relationship between the Iraq war and September 11 grows ever fuzzier, that may change.
Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad, when he was still defending himself, said there are "three truths: the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Alas, he left one out – the truth that people are willing to hear.
By Ross Levine, Morphizm October 31, 2003
|
|
|
| |
| ...John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime: An Alternate Q&A |
| 11.11.03 (6:24 pm) [edit] |
In 1996, John R. Lott, an Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, and David B. Mustard published a controversial study which purportedly showed that states that loosened their carry concealed weapons (CCW) laws experienced a reduction in certain types of crime specifically because they made it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons. In 1998, Lott published More Guns, Less Crime, a book based on his 1996 study.
It is important to note before detailing the major points of criticisms of Lott's book and study that he is unabashedly libertarian and may not be an unbiased source for research on gun-related issues. He has long been a proponent of the "Chicago School" theories of law and economics on subjects ranging from crime to the environment. In the past, he has argued that the benefit of a crime to a criminal can outweigh the harm that a crime inflicts on a society and, according to him, "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash." Two days after the Jonesboro schoolyard shootings, Lott called for arming teachers as the solution to preventing such tragedies. Most recently, Lott has argued that the hiring of more women and minorities in law enforcement has actually increased crime rates.
Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Unfortunately, while flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature — and his findings dismissed by numerous, prominent researchers — the gun lobby has successfully used Dr. Lott's flawed conclusions to persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions in the mid-90's.
Now, after several years in which the nation as a whole has enjoyed a declining crime rate, there is direct evidence that Lott's conclusions are wrong. A 1999 analysis of crime statistics conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) demonstrates that allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The Center found that, as a group, states that rely on permissive concealed weapons laws as a crime fighting strategy had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to combat crime rather than make it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit.
In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns.
Furthermore, according to the CPHV analysis, violent crime actually rose in 12 of 29 states (41%) which liberalized their CCW laws over the five years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which did not change their CCW laws. The disparity in the decline is even more obvious for rates of gun violence. From 1992 to 1997 (the last five years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for states with liberal CCW laws dropped 11.4%. Nationally the violent crime rate fell 19.4%.
If allowing more people to carry handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many "shall issue" states — particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime? The simple answer: allowing thousands of ill-trained citizens to carry guns everywhere they go has no positive effect on the crime rate. Research now substantiates what common sense has always argued: in a society riddled with gun-related crime, reducing the opportunities where guns can be used will actually reduce the rate of gun violence.
The following Q&A details other major points of criticism of Lott's book and study:
Q: What are the indications that Lott's study of changes in concealed carry laws is flawed?
A: Apart from the obvious mistakes (e.g., Lott's inability to accurately identify when states changed their carry laws), several researchers have shown that small changes in the statistical models Lott uses to reach his conclusions result in large changes in his findings - an important indication that his research is fundamentally flawed. Researchers who have reanalyzed Lott's data, for example, found no beneficial impact from changes in carry laws when Florida was not included in the study, or when they restricted their analysis to counties that had populations greater than 100,000 people.
Q: Doesn't Lott implicitly acknowledge that his work is fundamentally flawed because he does not account for other factors which could affect both the crime rate and the decision by state legislators to change carry laws?
A: Yes. On page 153 of More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "The more serious possibility is that some other factor may have caused both the reduction in crime rates and the passage of the law to occur at the same time." And he goes on to write that "For a critic to attack the paper, the correct approach would have been to state what variables were not included in the analysis." Well, this has been done.
Critics of Lott's study have identified a number of factors that affect crime rates, but which Lott failed to address in his research. Examples include changes in how the police go about their business (e.g., implementation of community policing, and crime-mapping techniques used by some police departments), changes in poverty levels, gang activity, maturation of the drug market, and other changes in gun laws.
Most important, in a paper published in the Journal of Legal Studies (January 1998), Dan Black and Daniel Nagin used a well known, formal statistical test that proved that Lott failed to include a number of important variables in his study. On the basis of this and other findings, Drs. Black and Nagin, along with Professor Jens Ludwig, concluded that "there is absolutely no credible evidence to support the idea that permissive concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime," and that "it would be a mistake to formulate policy based on the findings from Dr. Lott's study."
To this day, John Lott has failed to provide any statistical evidence of his own that counters Black and Nagin's finding that Lott's conclusions are inappropriately attributed to changes in concealed carry laws. Until Lott can do this, it is inappropriate for him to continue to claim that allowing more people to carry concealed handguns causes a drop in violent crime.
Q: Is it true that John Lott's findings have been dismissed by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who is cited as an authority on gun violence research by Lott and whose work is routinely praised by the NRA?
A: Yes. Kleck has accepted the Black and Nagin critique, writing in his new book that Lott's thesis "could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. [More] likely, the declines in crime, coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott and Mustard analysis" (Targeting Guns; p. 372).
Q: John Lott claims that changing the law to allow more people to carry concealed handguns causes a fall in violent crime, yet he finds virtually no beneficial effect from changes in handgun carry laws on robbery - the crime most likely to occur between strangers, and in public spaces. Is this finding consistent with his theory — does it make sense?
A: No, it does not make sense. In fact, the finding that changes in concealed carry laws result in a large drop in rape - a crime most often committed within homes by someone who is known to the victim - while showing virtually no beneficial impact on robbery is another indication that Lott's study is fundamentally flawed.
In scientific terminology, the basic criticism made of Lott's research is that the statistical model he used to reach his conclusions is "misspecified." This means, in part, that he did not adequately account for other factors which have an impact on crime rates - and which provide an alternate explanations for his findings. When a statistical model is misspecified, it cannot be used as the basis from which to draw conclusions about the impact of policy decisions. One clue that a model is misspecified is if it produces implausible findings.
Q: Are there other implausible findings in Lott's research?
A: Yes there are. For example, Lott claims that when states ease restrictions on concealed carry laws, criminals do not stop committing crimes - instead, they switch to crimes that decrease the likelihood that they will come in contact with an armed victim. Specifically, he finds that criminals stop committing rape, murder and aggravated assault, and start stealing cars and committing larceny. That is - they substitute auto theft and knocking off coin-operated machines for rape and murder.
Does anyone really believe that auto theft is a substitute for rape or for murder? Lott's research also suggests that the presence of elderly black women in the population is associated with higher rates of murder and auto theft despite the fact that these women are neither perpetrators nor victims of these types of crime.
Q: I'm confused-isn't it true that there is very little, if any, evidence that changes in carry laws have an impact on actual gun carrying?
A: True. One of the biggest mysteries is how changes in carry laws effects changes the risk that a criminal predator will confront an armed victim. Survey research suggests that the percentage of people who report carrying a gun, at least some of the time, exceeds the percentage of people who have a license to carry a gun. And even if the odds did change, why wouldn't criminals respond by becoming more likely to carry a gun themselves, more likely to shoot their victims, and more likely to attack from behind. Certainly, this is more likely to happen than a rapist becoming an auto thief.
Q: John Lott's claim is "more guns, less crime," but a substantial portion of that claim is based on his use of two voter exit polls. Can he use these polls to make this claim? And, does the evidence support the claim?
A: No. Lott inappropriately uses two voter exit polls to make assertions about changes in the level of gun ownership by adults in 14 states, and then compounds his mistake by using this data to make the assertion that "states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes."
First, according to the Voter News Service (the organization responsible for the 1996 poll) their data is designed to be nationally representative, but does not provide representative data about individual states. Second, according to the Voter News Service it is not possible to compare the 1988 and 1996 exit poll numbers on gun ownership because of differences in how the questions were asked. The fact that making the comparison produces results about changes in the level of gun ownership in America that are wildly out of whack with other survey data support this conclusion.
By comparing the two exit polls, and applying a formula that he devised, Lott concludes that the percentage of adults who own a firearm increased by 50% from 1988 to 1996, and the gun ownership among women increased at the fastest pace - yet, the best available evidence on gun ownership (from the General Social Survey) indicates that gun ownership has remained essentially unchanged for men and women since at least 1980. (Changes in Firearm Ownership Among Women, 1980-1994; Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995) Because Lott has inappropriately misused the exit polls in conducting his study, and so radically miscalculated changes in gun ownership, it is simply impossible for him to make any assertions about the relationship between changes in gun ownership and the crime rate.
Q: Is it true that law enforcement has consistently been opposed to weakening carry concealed weapons laws?
A: Yes, and for good reason. Law enforcement does not favor allowing more citizens to carry guns as a solution to crime problems. Police feel that an armed citizenry jeopardizes their safety, and public safety in general. When more citizens are armed, police officers have to approach every vehicle stop, every contact with a citizen, as a potential contact with an armed individual. Furthermore, law enforcement has been instrumental in defeating efforts to ease CCW restrictions all across the country, because they know the responsibility involved with carrying a concealed weapon.
Proponents of this legislation contend that citizens will be adequately trained to handle firearms responsibly, but this is rarely true. Police departments require officers to go through a great deal of safety and proficiency training before being issued a gun - followed by regular refresher courses and qualifications throughout the officer's career. Citizens armed under the provisions of non-discretionary carry laws are not so highly trained, and frequently not trained at all, thereby further increasing the risk of injury and death with a firearm.
Q: Wouldn't allowing more people to carry concealed handguns increase incidents of citizens attacking each other?
A: Yes. Contrary to John Lott's assertion that "such fears are unfounded," it appears to be increasingly evident that permit holders commit very serious offenses which, unfortunately, are not isolated events. The Texas Department of Public Safety found that felony and misdemeanor cases involving license holders rose from 431 in 1996 to 666 as of mid-December in 1997, a 54.5 percent increase. What makes this particularly disturbing is that Texas has the strictest licensing law of the "shall issue" or non-discretionary states. Texas also has one of the most stringent reporting requirements for CCW infractions. This type of information is either not available from other states or the standard is much more lax for reporting CCW-related events. The information from Texas certainly undermines claims by the gun lobby that only law-abiding citizens will carry.
Q: Do gun traffickers benefit when states ease access to concealed-carry permits?
A: Yes. The Philadelphia Inquirer (Sunday, January 11, 1998) highlighted the problem in that city of CCW license holders involved in gun trafficking. According to the Inquirer, Pennsylvania CCW licensees, who can avoid background checks and waiting periods, are serving as straw purchasers getting handguns into the illegal markets. In fact, the article concluded CCW licensees are a major source of gun trafficking: according to Stephen T. Haskins, a senior ATF special agent, "We are experiencing more straw purchasing in Philadelphia because they changed the requirement for the permit to carry."
|
|
|
| |
| ...GUNS IN THE HOME |
| 11.10.03 (6:37 pm) [edit] |
There are an estimated 193 million guns in America. Some estimates range as high as 250 million. That's almost one gun for every man, woman and child in the United States. Guns are not just in urban and rural homes, they're everywhere – cities, towns, suburbs and farms. In fact, there is a gun in 43% of households with children in America. There's a loaded gun in one in every ten households with children, and a gun that's left unlocked and just "hidden away" in one in every eight family homes.
While the Brady Campaign united with the Million Mom March does not seek to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning, using, or purchasing firearms, people have the right to know the true risks associated with keeping a gun in the home. The fallacy that a home is safer with a gun in it and that a gun is a necessary means of self-protection is widely promoted by the gun lobby. The gun lobby also downplays or ignores the risks families take when they introduce a gun into the home.
Does a Gun in the Home Make You Safer?
No. Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home.
Keeping A Gun in the Home Can Be Deadly
Because handguns and other firearms are so easily accessible to many children, adolescents and other family members in their homes, the risk of gun violence in the home increases dramatically. Consider this: The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.[3] The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.[4] What's more, tragic stories of accidental or unintentional shootings from the careless storage of guns at home are all too common. The statistic noted above bears repeating: a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting. [5]
A Gun in the Home: Key Facts
From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6]
Guns are the weapon of choice for troubled individuals who commit suicide. In 1999, firearms were used in 16,599 suicide deaths in America. Among young people under 20, one committed suicide with a gun every eight hours.[7]
A gun in the home also increases the likelihood of an unintentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot t hemselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[8]
When Tragedy Strikes Home: Recent Incidents
On March 21, 2002, a 14-year-old South Carolina boy deliberately shot and killed his 12-year-old foster sister. The boy had taken live shotgun shells from his father's house and used them in a shotgun that he had taken from his mother's bedroom.
("Alleged shooter under house arrest," The Herald (Rock Hill, SC), March 27, 2002.)
On March 28, 2002, 15-year-old Quinton Bridges was shot and critically injured by his 15-year-old friend, Derek Scott Oaks in Tucson, AZ. The youths had been tossing water balloons and wrestling before Oaks loaded his father's rifle and aimed it at his friend's head while the teen sat at a computer playing a game. According to police, the boys were not arguing; Oaks didn't think the firearm worked because he tried to pull the trigger before he went in the room and it didn't fire. Oaks has since been charged with attempted second-degree murder.
("Teen charged with attempted murder," Tucson Citizen, March 30, 2002.)
On March 30, 2002, a 9-year-old Seattle boy was wounded when a .22-caliber rifle he and his 13-year-old brother were playing with discharged. The boys were playing with the gun in a bedroom in their uncle's home.
("9-Year-Old Boy Wounded In Apparent Accidental Shooting," KOMO News web site, March 30, 2002.)
On April 6, 2002, 3-year-old Stephon Starks shot and wounded himself with a .22-caliber pistol that he found in a dresser drawer in his mother's bedroom in Nashville, TN. Police said Stephon had gotten up to get some clean underwear after he wet the bed when he found the gun. He was climbing back into bed when the gun went off.
("Boy, 3, wounds himself after finding gun in mom's room," The Tennessean, April 7, 2002.)
On April 8, 2002, a 4-year-old Jacksonville, FL boy died after unintentionally shooting himself, while playing with his grandfather's gun while the rest of the family was sleeping.
("Boy, 4, accidentally kills self," Florida Times-Union, April 9, 2002.)
Do Parents Do a Good Job of Keeping Kids Away from Guns in the Home?
No. A 1998 study by Peter Hart Research on behalf of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (now the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence) found that, even though most parents realize that guns in the home endanger their children, many parents still leave guns accessible to kids.
Specifically, in the nationwide survey of 806 parents, 43% of households with children have guns, and 23% of gun households keep a gun loaded. 28% keep a gun hidden and unlocked. 54% of parents said that they would be highly concerned about their child's safety if they knew there was a gun in the home of their child's friend. Despite many parents' concern about the immediate dangers that guns left in the house pose to their children, they are failing to take the necessary steps to help ensure their children's safety. Perhaps most significantly, many parents simply do not view guns as a personal threat to their children or their family whatsoever.
Too often a parent drops off their child at a friend's house for an afternoon play session or a sleep-over party not knowing that the car ride would be the last time they would see their child alive. Why? The study found that most parents don't discuss the issue of guns in the home with the parents of their children's friends. Amazingly, only 30% have asked the parents of their children's friends if there is a gun in the home before allowing a visit. 61% of the parents included in the survey responded that they never even thought about asking other parents about gun accessibility.
Clearly, parents don't think about the tragic possibilities of an innocent visit to another home. While parents are asking each other about supervision, food allergies, adult television access, they are ignoring guns — the one factor that could mean the life or death of their child.
Child Access Prevention Laws
The Brady Campaign supports Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, or "safe storage" laws that require adults to either store loaded guns in a place that is reasonably inaccessible to children, or if they decide to leave their guns left out in the open, to use a safety device to lock the gun. If a child obtains an improperly stored, loaded gun, the adult owner is criminally liable.
Although the primary intention of CAP laws is to help prevent unintentional injury, CAP laws can also serve to reduce juvenile suicide and homicide by keeping guns out of the reach of children. Currently, 18 states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin — have enacted CAP laws. In addition, Kansas courts have held that gun owners in Kansas may be held liable if they leave guns easily accessible to children.
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----
Endnotes
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
Kellermann AL. "Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes." JAMA 1995; 273(22):1759-62.
Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329: 1084-1091.
Kellermann, AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." New England Journal of Medicine. 1992; 327: 467-472.
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
"Homicide Trends in the United States." Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, from the WONDER Injury Mortality Data.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children – 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report. 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.
April 2002
Taken from: http://www.bradycampaign.org/...
|
|
|
| |
| ...Kids and Guns in America |
| 11.09.03 (1:32 pm) [edit] |
It shouldn't take a school shooting or an inner-city neighborhood shooting to make us realize that American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.[1]
In the United States, young children die or are badly injured because their parents or other gunowners don't store their firearms properly, and children find loaded guns and use them unintentionally on themselves or other children. Older children are more at risk from horseplay with available guns, while teenagers use guns for impulse suicides and for crime. All are vulnerable to getting caught in the crossfire from guns used in domestic violence and in crime. Meanwhile, the gun lobby opposes every common-sense measure to reduce the accessibility of firearms to kids, from Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws to the mandatory sale of trigger-locks or childproof, "personalized" guns. Although the National Rifle Association (NRA) insists that the entertainment industry bears responsibility for exposing children to violent images, it refuses to accept responsibility for providing children with both the means and the ideology to hurt themselves and other people.
The Problem
As the rate of gun violence dramatically increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, American children paid the price. From 1984 to 1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. While deaths from gunfire have been decreasing since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children.
Cars do kill children: so do poorly-made toys and swimming pools and dozens of common household items. But of all the thousands of products with which children have contact, only one — firearms — are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations. Back in 1972, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created, the gun lobby's political power ensured that the one product that is specifically designed to cause death and injury remained exempt. Thus, most handguns have so little trigger resistance that they can be fired by a three-year old, while many guns fire when dropped on the floor. Many popular semi-automatic handguns lack magazine safety disconnects or load indicators, meaning that children have no way of knowing that a gun that appears unloaded actually has a bullet in the chamber.
Our government recalls or bans hundreds of products when even a few children are killed or injured by a flawed design. Recently, some schools have created "peanut-free zones" in their cafeterias because of the tiny number of children who are highly allergic to peanut products. In 1999, major car manufacturers began installing inside-trunk latches on new cars because 11 children had died the previous year by suffocating in locked car trunks. For years, the gun industry has made their products more and more lethal, instead of devoting any of its profits to the development of a childproof gun, and the industry is absolutely immune to government intervention for its actions (see Gun Industry Reform).
The gun industry and their mouthpieces at the NRA have fought every reasonable effort to protect children from guns by legislation. At the state and federal level, the gun lobby fights CAP laws which hold a gunowner responsible if a child gains access their unsecured gun. It fights laws that mandate the sale — not the use, just the sale — of trigger locks with new firearms. It opposes raising the age for handgun possession to 21 — the same age at which we permit young people to drink — even though 18- and 19-year olds commit more crimes than any other age group.
And by coaxing hundreds of local governments, schools and youth groups to support its Eddie Eagle program, the NRA ensures that thousands of kids get the message that they shouldn't touch guns, which are for grownups. What Eddie Eagle really does is put responsibility on young children not to touch or play with guns — rather than on grownups for keeping the guns inaccessible. Eddie Eagle also ensures that children learn that using guns is an adult behavior to aspire to — creating new generations of gun-owners and gun purchasers. Not for nothing has Eddie Eagle been called "Joe Camel with Feathers." Despite the fact that there has never been any proof that the Eddie Eagle program is effective at teaching children to stay away from guns, the NRA continues to insist that this public relations program alone will solve the problem of kids and guns.
Kids and Guns: Key Facts
For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.[2]
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S.as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.[3]
Over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998-99 for bringing guns to school. Of these, 43% were in elementary or junior high school. This means that, in a 40-week school year, an average of 88 children per week nationwide are expelled for bringing a gun in school. And these figures include only the children who get caught.[4]
During 1999, 52% of all murder victims under 18 in the U.S. were killed by guns. In 1986, guns were used in 38% of such murders. In 1999, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.[5]
In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.[6]
In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day.
The Laws
There are very few laws governing children's access to guns. The Brady Law made it illegal for children under age 21 to purchase handguns from licensed dealers, although a loophole still permits 18-21 year olds to purchase handguns from private or unlicensed individuals. The shooters in the Columbine High School massacre used four guns purchased at gun shows, three of which were bought by an eighteen-year-old friend who didn't have to undergo a background check.
Each state has different laws governing the transfer and possession of guns to and by juveniles. Most states permit teenagers to possess long guns, including assault weapons grandfathered by the 1994 assault weapon ban, without adult supervision.
Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws have been passed by 18 states. These states hold gunowners criminally liable if children access their unsecured weapons and hurt themselves or someone else. In 1997, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that accidental deaths of children from firearms decreased 23% in the two years after CAP laws went into effect.
For information on the laws affecting children and guns in your state, see State Laws.
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------
Endnotes
Embassies and foreign reporting agencies, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, 1997.
Annest, JL, et.al. "National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: beyond the tip of the iceberg," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 273:1749-1754.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children – 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report. 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.
U.S. Department of Education. Report on State Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act: School Year 1998-99. October 2000, p. 2.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1999, table 2.11.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, from the WONDER Injury Mortality Data.
Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.
|
|
|
| |
| ...The Myth of the Second Amendment |
| 11.08.03 (2:24 am) [edit] |
What does the Second Amendment Mean?
How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.
The History of the Second Amendment: Original Meaning and Intent
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment — the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" — a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 — hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
The Second Amendment Today
In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.
Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia — the National Guard — has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice — in 1965 and 1990 — the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see — and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a 'Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precendents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
Gun Control Laws and the Second Amendment
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.
|
|
|
| |
| ....So...Who Needs an AK-47 to Go Duck-Hunting? |
| 11.07.03 (2:22 am) [edit] |
That usually sums up the argument against military-style assault weapons to almost every American's satisfaction. Until 1994, when the federal assault weapons ban passed Congress as part of President Clinton's crime bill, semiautomatic versions of "Streetsweepers," UZIs, AK-47's, and other war weapons were manufactured, imported and sold freely in this country. The upsurge in gun violence relating to gang and drug activity that began in the late '80's created an enormous demand for these weapons, which fire up to 6 bullets a second and which frequently held magazines holding 20, 30 or even 50 rounds of ammunition.
Although it is illegal in every state to hunt animals with more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and although semiautomatic assault weapons are useless for recreational activities, the gun lobby fought the assault weapons ban to the bitter end. Its tactics, and its political strength in Congress assured that the U.S. would be suffering the effects of assault weapons for years to come, by ensuring that the assault weapon ban grandfathered existing assault weapons. As a result, hundreds of thousands of assault weapons made before the ban took effect in September of 1994 may still be legally bought and sold in the U.S. today. One of the guns used in the Columbine High School shooting was the TEC-DC9 assault pistol, a gun specifically marketed to criminals to be fingerprint resistant before the 1994 ban.
In 1999, however, the bellwether state California passed the nation's toughest ban on assault weapons with overwhelming public support. With your support, other states' legislatures can be convinced to emulate California and pass laws that will further reduce the availability and use of semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons in America.
The Problem
Semiautomatic assault weapons are not machine guns of the sort used by Al Capone. The sale or transfer of fully automatic machine guns, which automatically feed ammunition into the chamber so that one depression of the trigger automatically sprays multiple bullets as long as the trigger is pulled, were restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (see The Six Federal Gun Laws). These fully automatic machine guns are still available, but acquiring them requires the payment of a significant tax, a thorough FBI background check, and the approval of local law enforcement officials. Moreover, as replacement parts for these truly military guns become harder to find, the price of these weapons has steadily increased while their availabilty have declined.
Semiautomatic assault weapons are only slightly less deadly than machine guns. Pulling the trigger on these guns fires a single bullet, but also automatically loads the next bullet into the chamber, so that the user can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds by repeatedly pulling the trigger. The best-known semi-automatic weapons, including the Israeli UZI, the Chinese-made SKS rifle and the Soviet AK-47 were all developed for military use, and are ill-suited for hunting.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows the government to prohibit the import of guns not designed for sporting purposes, which most certainly includes assault weapons. As crimes committed with assault weapons increased, President George H. W. Bush took the first step in controlling these weapons by banning certain imported assault rifles in 1989.
More action was needed, especially as it became obvious that the nation's law enforcement was badly outgunned by criminals armed with assault weapons. In 1994, a leading law enforcement executive characterized semi-automatic assault weapons as nothing more than "cop-killer guns." At the time, all assault weapons accounted for more than 17% of fatal shootings of police.
Although it took four years and enormous public support to overcome the National Rifle Association's implacable opposition, the 1994 crime bill specifically banned the future manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons with no hunting or sporting purpose. The crime bill defines semiautomatic assault weapons both with a list of 19 specifically banned weapons, and with objective criteria designed to ban the futher production of these weapons clearly intended and accessorized for military or criminal use. The crime bill also banned the future manufacture and import of large-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets.
Despite the support of the vast majority of the American public for the ban, in 1995 the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal it. Only the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the public's outrage at the gun lobby's connections with militia groups forestalled Congress' and the NRA's attempts to return assault weapons to the nation's streets.
In the years since the ban took effect, assault weapon manufacturers here and abroad have responded by cosmetically altering several of their best-selling weapons and putting them back on the market. Colt, for example, modified the banned AR-15 into a new "Sporter" model that deleted a few accessories, while Intratec's TEC-9 became the AB-10 (for "after-ban"). In 1997, an application was submitted to ATF to import the "Uzi American" – at which point President Clinton's administration suspended permits previously granted for the importation of 600,000 modified assault rifles. In April 1998, noting that they had no sporting purpose, the President permanently banned many of these copycat assault weapons — most of which can accept large ammunition magazines still in circulation — from further import.
Assault Weapons: Key Facts
Assault weapon bans work. In 1989, when President Bush stopped the import of certain assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped by 45% in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.
Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time. Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip and are designed to maximize death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed with military features such as silencers, folding stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are ludicrously unsuited for civilian use.
Assault weapons were used…
To kill 5 children and wound 29 others in a Stockton, CA schoolyard in 1989. The AK-47 held 75 – that's right, 75 – bullets.
To kill 8 people and 6 others at a San Francisco law firm in 1993. Two TEC-9's with 50-round magazines were used in the massacre.
To kill 2 CIA employees and wound three others outside the CIA's Langley, VA headquarters in 1993.
To kill 4 ATF special agents and wound 16 others at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX, when the officers were attempting to serve warrants on the cult in 1993.
Although assault weapons comprised only 1% of privately-owned guns in America, they accounted for 8.4% of all guns traced to crime in 1988-91.
The Laws
The new California assault weapon ban is a model for the nation. Every military-style gun designed for hunting humans, rather than animals, will be banned from further manufacture or sale in California, and existing weapons must be registered. The 1994 federal law prohibited the manufacture of semi-automatic firearms that accept a detachable magazine with more than two of the following assault weapons features:
Rifle
Folding or telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
bayonet mount
threaded mussle or flash suppresor
grenade launcher
Pistols
Magazine Outside Grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel Shroud
Unloaded Weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-Automatic Version of a fully Automatic Weapon
Shotguns
Folding/Telescoping Stock
Protruding Pistol Grip
Detachable Magazine Capacity
Fixed Magazine Capacity Greater than 5 rounds.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Bush Challenges Iran, Syria, Egypt on Democracy |
| 11.06.03 (12:46 pm) [edit] |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday challenged Iran and Syria and even key U.S. ally Egypt to adopt democracy and declared past U.S. policy of supporting non-democratic Arab leaders a failure.
Calling for democracy throughout the Middle East, Bush said in a sweeping foreign policy speech: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? ... I, for one, do not believe it."
Speaking to the National Endowment for Democracy, where President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) spoke on global democracy 20 years ago, Bush said U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom had failed and Washington had adopted a new, "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East."
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.
Bush did not say what measures the United States might take to prod Middle Eastern nations toward democratic reform. Egypt, for example, receives $2 billion a year in assistance but there was no sign the White House was prepared to reduce such aid as an incentive.
Washington has for decades supported authoritarian governments throughout much of the Muslim world, including Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, as well as Egypt, that are seen by many of their own citizens as corrupt and illegitimate in both political and religious terms.
This support, in turn, has aggravated anti-American sentiment in the region, with opposition groups saying withdrawal of U.S. backing would open the way to popular, democratic change.
It was Bush's latest attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) as necessary to foster democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. troop casualties.
He singled out Iran and Syria for particular criticism. The United States believes Iran's Islamic government is holding back a democratic movement and has been trying to build a nuclear weapon. Washington considers Syria a terrorist state.
Bush cited the crowds that welcomed home Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize, as evidence of a grass-roots movement for Iranian democracy.
"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy," Bush said.
He said Syrian leaders as well as those ousted in Iraq had promised a restoration of ancient glories but instead left "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin."
Of Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites), has been a vital Middle East interlocutor for successive U.S. presidents, Bush said: "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."
Bush praised what he called positive developments toward democracy taking place in Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia, which is taking its first, hesitant steps toward liberalization.
Bush, whose Middle East peace "road map" is in tatters due to renewed Israeli-Palestinian violence, accused Palestinian leaders of blocking democratic reform, prompting a response from Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat.
He urged Bush "to begin his vision for democracy in the Middle East by helping the Palestinians to hold free and fair presidential and legislative local elections."
"We've been trying to hold these elections for a long time but have failed due to the Israeli occupation," Erekat said.
an aside...
are they "beyond the reach of liberty?" wtf mate. what liberty? our out and out attack of their country and pushing them further out of the 21st century than they already were?
oh yea....they're bad. but now they're good and desevre (MUST HAVE) our liberties.....and all our billions of dollars too....thanks. and sending 100,000 more there to die......guess if you won't go willing, he'll MAKE YOU DO IT.
that is the true Bush ...
|
|
|
| |
| ...The Execution of Paul Hill and the Attempted Murder of Choice in America |
| 11.05.03 (8:38 pm) [edit] |
On September 3rd, 2003, Paul Hill became the first person in the U.S. to be executed for anti-abortion violence. He murdered Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, who was escorting Dr. Britton into the clinic, and seriously wounded Barrett's wife, June. Paul Hill's actions were repugnant, but justice will not be served in the least by this hypocritical execution, carried out by a regime that is, itself, one of the most women hating in American history. Hill's execution occurred in, and as an outgrowth of, the very same repressive political climate that spawned his vicious attack.
Despite our feelings towards Paul Hill, the Reproductive Freedom Task Force joins with the many diverse voices that opposed his execution. Refuse and Resist!, and our taskforce within it, remains unalterably opposed to the death penalty. This so-called "ultimate punishment" is a fundamentally racist, reactionary tool in a criminal justice system rife with racial and ethnic profiling. It does not deter crime. It is unfairly applied to those least able to defend themselves against the highest form of punishment. The death penalty is also used to suppress dissent, by attempting to blatantly silence progressive political prisoners with tremendous popular support, like Mumia Abu-Jamal. The execution of Paul Hill will not and does not change the fundamental character of the death penalty.
Additionally, Hill's execution took place in a whole national climate of global and domestic repression that fosters, and encourages, such attacks. Paul Hill promoted and derived justification for his homicidal views, and actions, from a pervasive culture of violence towards women, and an even broader underlying reactionary agenda that supports it. The same forces that lead the anti-abortion movement, including those that laud the killing of abortion providers, and view women as second-class citizens are also fundamentally against gays and lesbians, people of color, immigrants, and the poor, even other religions. To this end, anti-abortion groups like Operation Save America have publicly extended their agenda by opposing the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama courthouse, picketing gay events, gay friendly churches, and mosques as well as abortion clinics. That is why Refuse & Resist! says, "It's All One Attack".
Executing Paul Hill will not make one clinic, doctor, staff person or woman in this country safer. In fact, we are faced with the prospect of more violence toward abortion providers in the wake of Hill's execution. It took place at a time of unprecedented legislative attacks against all forms of reproductive freedom, in which 87% of all U.S. counties have not a single abortion provider, when Roe v. Wade hangs by a thread, and in a society where women's reproductive freedom is seen as shameful, abortion itself is called murder, and doctors are labeled "murderers". On Wednesday, September 3rd, one anti-abortion extremist was put to death-but the attempt to murder choice in this country will go on unabated.
|
|
|
| |
| ...Know Your Rights! |
| 11.02.03 (3:54 am) [edit] |
by National Lawyers Guild
What rights do I have?
The Right to Advocate for Change. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of groups and individuals who advocate changes in laws, government practices, and even the form of government.
The Right to Remain Silent. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to remain silent in the face of questions posed by any police officer or government agent.
The Right to be Free from "Unreasonable Searches and Seizures." The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect your privacy. Without a warrant, no government agent is allowed to search your home or office and you can refuse to let them in. Know, however, that it is easy for the government to monitor your telephone calls, conversations in your office, home, car, or meeting place, as well as mail. E-mail is particularly insecure. The government has already begun stepping up its monitoring of e-mails.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SUSPENDED -- EVEN DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY OR WARTIME.
What should I do if agents come to question me?
1. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TALK TO THE POLICE, FBI, INS, OR ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT OR INVESTIGATOR. Other than providing your name and address to a police officer who is investigating a crime, you are not legally obligated to talk to anyone: on the street, at your home or office, if you've been arrested, or even if you're in jail. Only a judge has the legal authority to order you to answer questions.
2. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LET POLICE OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS INTO YOUR HOME OR OFFICE UNLESS THEY HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT OR ARREST WARRANT. Demand to see the warrant. The warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. If they have a warrant, you cannot stop them from entering and searching, but you should still tell them that you do not consent to a search. This will limit them to the scope of the search authorized by the warrant.
3. IF THEY DO PRESENT A WARRANT, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MONITOR THEIR SEARCH AND ACTIVITIES. You have the right to observe what they do. You have the right to ask them for their names and titles. Take written notes including their names, badge numbers, and what agency they are from. Have your friends who are present act as witnesses. Give this information to your lawyer. A warrant does not give the government the right to question, nor does it obligate you to answer questions.
4. IF THE POLICE OR FBI OR INS OR ANYONE ELSE TRIES TO QUESTION YOU OR TRIES TO ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT, JUST SAY NO! Police and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. Many people are afraid that if they refuse to cooperate, it will appear as if they have something to hide. Don't be fooled. The police are allowed to (and do) lie to you. Although agents may seem nice and pretend to be on your side, they are likely to be intent on learning about the habits, opinions, and affiliations of people not suspected of wrongdoing, with the end goal of stopping political activity with which the government disagrees. Trying to answer agents' questions, or trying to "educate them" about your cause can be very dangerous. You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give them might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. And keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a crime.
5. IF YOU ARE STOPPED ON THE STREET, ASK IF YOU ARE FREE TO GO. If you are stopped by the police, ask them why. If they do not have a good reason for stopping you, or if you find yourself chatting for more than about a minute, ask "Am I under arrest, or am I free to go." If they do not state that you are under arrest, tell them that you do not wish to continue speaking with them and that you are going to go about your business. Then do so.
6. ANYTHING YOU SAY TO THE POLICE, FBI, INS, ETC. WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU AND OTHERS. Once you've been arrested, you cannot talk your way out of it! Don't try to engage the cops in dialogue or respond to their accusations.
7. In California, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE 3 FREE LOCAL TELEPHONE CALLS within three hours of your arrest on state charges if you are booked into jail. You have a right to call a lawyer, a bail bondsperson, and a friend or relative. If arrested by federal authorities, you also have a right to a phone call. Demand to make those calls.
8. THE FBI MAY THREATEN YOU WITH A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA IF YOU DON'T TALK TO THEM. They may give you a subpoena anyway, so anything you tell them may permit them to ask you more detailed questions later. You may also have legal grounds to refuse to answer questions before a grand jury. If you are given a grand jury subpoena, you should call a lawyer immediately (see contact information at the end). Tell your friends and movement groups about the subpoena and discuss how to respond. Do not try to deal with this alone.
9. IF YOU ARE NERVOUS ABOUT SIMPLY REFUSING TO TALK, TELL THEM TO CONTACT YOUR LAWYER. They should stop trying to question you once you announce your desire to consult a lawyer. You do not have to already have one. Remember to get the name, agency, and telephone number of any investigator who visits you, and contact the National Lawyers Guild for help getting a lawyer.
How should I respond to threatening letters or calls?
If your home or office is broken into, or threats have been made against you, your organization, or someone you work with, share this information with everyone affected. Take immediate steps to increase personal and office security. You should discuss with your organization and with a lawyer whether and how to report such incidents to the police and the advisability of taking other legal action. If you decide to make a report, do not do so without a lawyer present.
What if I suspect surveillance?
Prudence is the best course, no matter who you suspect, or what the basis of your suspicion. Do not hesitate to confront suspected agents politely, in public, with at least one other person present, and inquire about their business. If the suspect declines to answer, he or she at least now knows that you are aware of the surveillance. If you suspect government agents are monitoring you, or are harassing you, report this to the National Lawyers Guild.
What if I am not a citizen?
1. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REVEAL YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS. We cannot count on the police to honor local sanctuary ordinances, and the fact that the INS obtained your name in violation of a sanctuary ordinance will NOT prevent you from being deported.
2. FOREIGN NATIONALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THEIR CONSULATE if arrested in the U.S., under the Vienna Convention.
3. DO NOT TALK TO THE INS, EVEN ON THE PHONE, before talking to an immigration lawyer. Many INS officers view "enforcement," meaning deporting people, as their primary job. They do not believe that explaining immigration options is part of their job, and most will readily admit this. (Noncitizens who are victims of domestic abuse should speak with an expert in both immigration law and domestic violence.) A noncitizen should always speak with an immigration law expert before speaking to the INS either in person or by telephone.
4. KNOW AND ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!
All non-citizens have the following rights, regardless of your immigration status:
a. The right to speak to an attorney before answering any questions or signing any documents;
b. The right to a hearing with an Immigration Judge;
c. The right to have an attorney at that hearing and in any interview with INS (however you do not have the right to a free, government-paid lawyer); and
d. The right to request release from detention, by paying a bond if necessary.
Non-citizens must assert these rights. If you do not demand these rights, you can be deported without seeing either an attorney or a judge. Leaving the U.S. in this way may have serious consequences for your ability to later enter or to gain legal immigration status in the U.S.
5. TALK TO AN IMMIGRATION LAWYER BEFORE LEAVING THE U.S.
Anyone not a U.S. citizen may be barred from coming back to the U.S. if they fall into certain categories of people barred from entering. This includes some lawful permanent residents and applicants for green cards. Some noncitizens that have been in the U.S. without INS permission may be permanently barred from re-entering. In addition, some noncitizens that leave the US and return with INS permission may be swiftly removed from the U.S. if they end up in immigration proceedings.
CONTACT INFORMATION
National Lawyers Guild Bay Area legal hotline for local and federal police, government repression: 415-285-1055 or 415-255-0796
National Lawyers Guild National office: 212-627-2656, http://www.nlg.org/
National Immigration Project: (617) 227-9727
Immigration law information is also available on http://www.nilc.org/
American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (Northern California): 415-861-7444
ADC-National 202-244-2990
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California: 415-621-2493.
|
|
|
| |
| ....McCarthyism Watch: FBI Goes on Campus |
| 11.01.03 (3:50 am) [edit] |
December 17, 2002 The Progressive
Professor M. J. Alhabeeb teaches economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He is writing a book entitled "Microeconomic Theory of the Family," and one of his recent papers is entitled "Youth Employment in the United States: Trends and Implications."
But when two campus police officers, one working for the FBI, came to pay him a visit on the afternoon of October 24, they weren't interested in discussing his microeconomic theory or signing up for one of his courses.
"They came to my office and said they were acting on a tip someone called in saying I am anti-American," he recalls.
"I asked, 'What does that mean?'
"And they said, 'You are opposing the President's policy on Iraq.'
"And I said, 'Millions of Americans are opposing the war. What's the big deal?' "
The officers also asked, "When did you come here? And when did you become a citizen?" he says.
Alhabeeb fled Iraq in 1982 and is now a U.S. citizen. (The Boston Globe broke this story on November 24 in a piece by Eric Goldscheider and Jenna Russell.)
One officer told Alhabeeb that the person who gave the FBI his name knew him through Amherst Community TV. Alhabeeb is on the board of the TV station, which has been going through tough budgetary and personnel issues.
"Someone wanted an opportunity to hurt me," Alhabeeb told The Progressive. "I don't recall at any time discussing my politics in the atmosphere of the TV station."
Alhabeeb said the officers talked to him for five or ten minutes.
"This specific visit was not a horrible thing by itself," he says, but he is concerned about "the indiscriminate questioning of people based on ethnicity, religion, or color, and the threat to academic freedom and civil liberties. If we feel that we have to be cautious, that we have to hold our thoughts--this should never become the norm in American society."
Alhabeeb, who was harassed in Iraq because he was not a member of the Baath Party, says the visit from the officers "does bring back bad memories. I should live a different life, not similar to the one I lived before. And hopefully it won't get that far."
Faculty members at UMass-Amherst, as well as the ACLU, are trying to make sure that this kind of FBI snooping on campus stops.
Dan Clawson, a professor of sociology at UMass-Amherst, was outraged when he heard about the questioning of a fellow professor. He organized a meeting November 18 that drew 75 people and another on December 11 that attracted 125.
Some faculty members went to talk to the chancellor, John Lombardi, to express their concerns. Barbara Pitoniak, news director of UMass-Amherst, says, "He came out very strongly in defense of academic freedom."
Clawson went to talk with university police chief Barbara O'Connor. "She said the FBI had initiated a request for local police to assign someone to work as a liaison with the FBI terrorism task force," he recalls. "She had assigned this detective, Barry Flanders, and he worked with the FBI a couple days a week, she said. When he was working with them, she didn't exercise any supervision over him because she didn't have security clearance."
Chief O'Connor was not available for comment, nor did the public affairs officer for the department respond to a request for comment.
An FBI spokeswoman in Boston, Gail Marcinkiewics, said, "The Bureau has extended an invitation to local law enforcement, and if you want to be part of the task force, you need to have security clearance."
As to Alhabeeb, she says, "This was the least intrusive way of figuring out what was going on."
On December 12, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. "The enlistment of campus security officers to serve the intelligence interests of the FBI within the academic community raises concerns for First Amendment freedoms," the group said. It is seeking all records after September 11, 2001, dealing with "FBI cooperation or liaison with campus police or security officers at colleges and universities in the United States for the purposes of gathering intelligence and/or investigating students, faculty, and/or employees of the college or university."
Bill Newman is the director of the Western Massachusetts office of the ACLU. "The presence of the FBI dedicating significant resources to investigations on a university campus imposes an enormous chilling effect on academic freedom, robust debate, and political dissent," he says. "Absent legal law enforcement purposes, the presence of the FBI would constitute an anathema to freedom of inquiry for which a university must stand."
Newman and the ACLU are concerned that the FBI may be on many campuses around the country. "We have no reason to believe that UMass-Amherst was singled out," he says. "If this is happening at campuses around the country, then we all should know that." -- Matthew Rothschild
|
|
|
| |
|
QUOTE:
Stupidity has a bad habit of getting its way. --"The Day After"
QUOTE: Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
– A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
QUOTE: War: A wretched debasement of all the pretenses of civilization.
– General Omar Bradley
I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats...
– Benjamin Franklin
"There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly."-- Klaatu, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 1951.
|
