It matters. Voting. Who you vote for. Who appoints judges. See this for some broken promises.

Ceashel,
You are so right--I read this article in my newspaper today. It's awful--and what will the vets from the Gulf War and the upcoming Iraq conflict have taken away from them?

Crap.

I copied this article from another website, written by a poster there:


The 4th Amendment, an unwavering champion of our right to privacy, died on 18 November 2002. The amendment, adopted by the convention of states on 17 September 1787, was 215. The 4th tirelessly fought to guarantee that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4th has had health issues over the years, struggling with those that have tried to weaken it. Most recently, it received a life-threatening blow from the USA Patriot Act. But lower courts, concerned about possible civil liberties abuses, tended to the injury by trying to curtail some of the Act's power.

On the 18th, the ruling of the lower courts was overridden by an all but unknown court: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which is the appeals arm of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The appeals panel includes three men that were appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The courts meet in secret at the Justice Department. Initially, the FISC ruled the surveillance privileges sought by John Ashcroft after 9.11 "were not reasonably designed" to ensure the privacy rights of citizens. It cited many previous abuses of surveillance laws. But government lawyers sought a review. And the appeals panel determined the authorized surveillance measures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are "reasonable."

And so, with the courage characteristic of its life, the 4th succumbed to this ruling at its home in the pages of the Constitution, surrounded by friends and loved ones.

Ann Beeson of the Civil Liberties Union, a long-time supporter of the 4th stated: "As of today, the attorney general can suspend the ordinary requirements of the 4th Amendment in order to listen to phone calls, read e-mails, and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices." Those that are being monitored won't know it. So, in essence, there is no mechanism in place to challenge the surveillance. And currently, only the government can do that.

John Ashcroft was reportedly seen shortly after the decision dancing around in circles on tiptoe, hugging himself while singing, "hot damn, hot damn, hot damn." On record, he called the ruling revolutionary and said, "the decision allows the Department of Justice to free immediately our agents and prosecutors in the field to work more closely and cooperatively in achieving our core mission...the mission of preventing terrorists attacks." As it stands, the definition of a "terrorist" is broad enough to include almost anybody.

Even if the ruling had gone the other way, the 4th would've surely lost its life at the hands of the likes of John Poindexter and his new post-9.11 brainchild: the Information Awareness Office (IAO), a new pentagon operation with a $200 million budget that Poindexter will head. Poindexter, retired rear admiral, and former national security advisor is most remembered for another of his brainchildren: funding anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua by selling arms to Iran. He was released from the jail sentence he was serving for lying to Congress about this because it was decided his evidence warranted congressional immunity.

The premiere program of the IAO will be called the Total Information Awareness Program. This program, if it so desires, can develop a dossier on every single American, unearthing and tracking nearly everything a person does with little or no need to explain itself and its motivations. This unchecked, broad-sweeping power is something our dearly departed amendment would be greatly dismayed to see.

The 4th was loved and respected by the citizens throughout the US that it protected. "How will I ever feel comfortable exercising my 1st amendment rights without the protections of the 4th?" asked one mourner, crying into her copy of the Constitution. Fearing repercussions, she refused to state her name. "I always knew I could count on it," she continued. "It was always there for me." Another sobbed, "El Cuarto - that's what we used to call it- was such a big part of my life. It's what made our country different from those police states. What are we going to do now?"

What indeed. The 4th Amendment will be sorely missed.

It is survived by 26 sibling amendments. The besieged 1st, 6th, and 14th amendments are also fighting for their lives. And the 2nd continues to be held hostage by special interests.

The surviving amendments ask that in lieu of flowers, you send your congressperson(s) your heartfelt sentiments.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by lcj on Nov 23, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

Wow! That was extremely well done! Thanks for sharing.

Terrie

A friend sent me this article. I don't agree with his whole slant (relax Pat!), but he does make some interesting points. http://www.citypages.com/databank/23/1147/article10891.asp

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pamramadama:

Crap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As in good crap? Or bad crap?

He does make interesting points, and I do agree with some of them, lcj. Where I draw the line is that I believe that the Republicans are the much, much greater of two evils, even if you do think the Democrats are an "evil" and I think the differences he dismisses are very important to real people. What I hope is that the noise that they're making helps to shape some Democratic policies, but when it comes time to vote, I truly hope that this time people will keep in mind that you're voting for one of two candidates in most big elections. I don't care if there are 15 candidates on the ballot, you're casting a vote for one of two no matter what you do and the one who wins will declare a mandate.

Your point is certainly not lost on me any longer. I can see the differences, enough so that I voted for almost all Dems in the last election, and worked for Wellstone instead of the Greens. The war that the ass-munch Republicans are waging on our environment is enough for me. Without even getting into their other destructive policies.

I still have HUGE problems with the Dems however, their priorities, and their own bonehead moves. I've come to the conclusion that who you support must depend on your perspective and your hope. If you feel that working incrementally for slow change is adequate, and that getting back to centrist Clinton policies is enough, without question the Dems are your party. If you feel the whole system sucks to the point of tossing the baby with the bathwater, the Greens offer another choice. And even though I agree that Greens are not currently electable to Pres, I do not agree that they cannot win lesser positions. They already have. I think their success depends on what the Dems do. The Dems have the power to take back the Green supporters if they play their cards right. And I hope they do.

I no longer consider myself a Green absolutist. I'm changint to an "independant liberal." If I like the Dem, I'll support them and their better chance of winning. I may also vote Green if I don't like the Dem.

Miranda is on the mats. Cops in Oxnard Ca. shot a man five times and then questioned him for 45 minutes before getting medical attention, innocent man is now blind and will never walk again, but the cops say they were within their rights.

Police should and do have the right to use force to question people, they also can with hold food and water medical attention ect, to force the person to talk.....confessions can not be used in court, but they can get other information and use it, such as were are the victims, were is the gun and any other crimes they wish.

Bush supports the new understanding of our rights to agree with the police, and the matter is now before the courts.

The so=called Maranda Rights apply only in the courts and not to police questioning a suspect, therefor, when required to do so, Police can use force to question a person, as we have no right not to answer, except in court.

lcj, I guess Bush got so caught up in the spirit of Thanksgiving and didn't know how else to make a grand gesture, so he gave away our forests.

Not only did he do that Ceas, he just signed a bill that would give 12 eastern states, a legal standby to 'lower' thier emissions. The area I live in, (upstate NY hop, skip and a small swim to Canada)!

Many business's up & left, as St. Lawrence County had the highest standards in the state. Most people live here, for the quality of air, and the sparce population. (seeing a moose is no big deal) Well it is, but that's another story!

Regardless if our high standards are kept. Scientist agree that most likely effected are the New England states. With the Eastern Lake effect dropping what would be Acid rain of the 02's + 3's ect!!!

Bushes comment was, (paraphrasing) well the average person won't be effected. Only people with Asthma, and respitory problems.
I don't live far from 'Waldon's Pond'. That area will be effected. It's a slap in the face, to all who did what they could, to keep something sacrid!

HOPEFULLY this Republican war monger will be nothing but, a memory a couple of yrs. from now.

In retrospect I think John McCain would have been a good President.

Has anyone watched HBO's Travels with George?...<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/eek.gif" width=15 height=15> It vividly reminds you of his camera persona, and his he's a jerk persona.

C.I.A., cleared to kill US Citizens, if they are thought to be terrorist. Well that should save us a little on court costs.
Who said Geo Bush wouldn't watch out for the little man?

After serving nearly 12 years in the Air Force, I was offered a sum of money to get out. During the military's downsizing in the early '90s, they first cut back on recruiting, so our organizations didn't have as many low-ranking airmen. Then they cut back on how long sergeants in certain ranks could stay on active duty in their ranks, and if not promoted, they would be forced to retire. That got rid of a lot of deadwood master sergeants, but we lost a few good ones too.

This left a lot of military organizations heavy in mid-management and supervisors, proportionate to the total workforce. In order to reduce the size of the Air Force's career airmen that weren't eligible to retire, they talked about offering early retirement, but instead opted to offer us tens of thousands of dollars to leave the military, without our pensions and without our medical and other benefits (base and commissary priveleges).

In the Air Force, I worked in military payroll, and I handled retirees' pay as well. I had the chance to chat with many retired sergeants and officers that had watched their medical benefits erode over the decades. Many warned me not to trust that I would continue to have the benefits I already enjoyed. I personally saw them go from having free care in the base hospital to having to obtain health care off-base and getting reimbursed for part of it.

That was ten years ago, and though I'd be retired had I stayed in the military, I've continued to see retirees struggle against even more adversity and uncertainty. I'm glad I got out while the getting was good.

And while I served during Desert Storm, I saw that reservists were also given a bit of the shaft. I opted to stay out of the Air Force altogether, instead of joining the reserves or air national guard. I guess that, had I stayed in, I'd be writing home from tent city instead of writing to you here online.