Subject:
|
Re: The War That Never Ends
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:21:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
452 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In other words the law itself that is being used is so secret that it can’t
be disclosed in open court, even to a judge. So much for due process. So much
for being made aware of what you are being charged with.
|
And very closely related to this story...
US anti-war activists hit by secret airport ban
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=430073&host=3&dir=70
After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they
were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the
existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of
people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.
The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US
agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised “no-fly”
list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist
ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers.
The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the second
list has been used to target political activists who challenge the government in
entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of the list in response
to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning two anti-war activists from
San Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained at the airport last autumn
and told they were on an FBI no-fly list.
The activists, Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, work for a small pacifist magazine
called War Times and say they have never been arrested, let alone have criminal
records. Others who have filed complaints with the ACLU include a left-wing
constitutional lawyer who has been strip-searched repeatedly when travelling
through US airports, and a 71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from
flying to Washington to join an anti-government protest.
I wonder if John can understand that it doesn’t matter if it’s not he, or I, or
even Lar that is being harassed in this manner -- this kind of treatment is
unamerican in every way imaginable!!!
What more proof is needed, John? I suppose this treatment of a few is okay with
you given the current state of “emergency” that will stretch forward into time
until it becomes infinity.
It’s noy okay, not at all.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The War That Never Ends
|
| (...) I realize how some people here will interpret this but if peaceful means (protesting, legal action, etc.) are being covertly outlawed, then it is getting awful close to the time when it will be neccessary invoke our second amendment right in (...) (21 years ago, 4-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: The War That Never Ends
|
| (...) But not being an activist is still no guarantee. The Sacramento NBC affiliate did a story about two men -- one a school teacher, the other a truck driver-- who were detained at Sac International simply for having the same fairly common name as (...) (21 years ago, 4-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The War That Never Ends
|
| (...) Bully, you mean? (...) Lead article in this month's Reason: (URL) both the cite request for loss of privacy and the cite request for denial of right to travel. Note that now that the feds took over, there no longer is the valid defence of "try (...) (21 years ago, 3-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
