The House vote was 357 to 66. The Senate will take up the bill shortly, and the plan is to have a Friday signing ceremony at the White House

Hope it's not too similar to the anti-terror laws in Britain, the ones they used up in Ireland during the ongoing "conflict".

Very simple change: Guilty until proven innocent, if a cop thinks you're suspicious into jail you go for up to 3 weeks without any formal charges...

This sucks bigtime.

At least most politicians are against the "National ID Card" (NID) that's being endorsed by Oracle and Microsoft though there's supposedly around 80% public approval. (Take into account the usual innaccuracy of such polls...)

Now, an NID wouldn't be a bad idea if it was accompanied by sweeping changes in the laws about information collection, storage, access, etc. Would be nice if it was an extremely difficult to copy instrument that would difinitively prove that you are who the card says you are, with minimal access to, say, your age. (Over 18, under 21 or Under 18 or Over 21 or Over 55 if we want to include senior citizen discount things...) Any other information should be restricted and exceedingly hard to get. Burn all the marketer's databases, etc. If you have money and proof that you are the correct person to have the card and are of age, you can buy whatever it is that is offered. No names needed if done right. Won't need it for "border crossings", just for flights, maybe bus and train rides, etc.

Unfortunately, that is a utopian view of such a device. Invariably, it will be linked to all existing information about you, and will be soon "required" for all major purchases and/or credit card purchases. Nice paper trail there. Whee.

so,
the new " terror " law does what for the country again???

seems to me that all it does is gut this part of the constitution. but of course,
im very opinionated, and rub people the wrong way on this board, i could just be out of line..
AGAIN.

Dosn't Religion, Fear, and Dillusion do great things for our race?

No one has the courage to question the answers, because it is easier not to.

A feeling of helplessness is right! @#$!

Anybody know a good way to get out of this here "Matrix-like" consume-until-you're-so-in-debt-you-worry-yourself-to-death thing?

Only thing I have to look forward to right now is the chance to fix my FJ-40 in my brother's garage. Hoping the sale of the other FJ-40 and a few "extra" winches will pay for the bits/tools...

Get that sucker running, figure out how to back out of my lease, and deplete my bank account driving somewhere ELSE...

Or something.

Problem with such ideas is they usually get battered down by that "helpless" feeling way too soon to be enacted...

Feel like a lazy @#$& 'cause I don't have a job and that's not really any different than feeling like a lazy #$%@ because I don't have a job that pays "enough".

Ick.

@$%#ed either way.

Fuck responsibilities, they only cause more depression!!!

only eight and one-half left of the first ten. but who cares right??? since this new law erodes away even some of the first, dont you people think it time to wake the fuck up yet??? or no, thats right. they havnt taken away your computer..., so your all still
not " directly effected " by any of this right?? oh wait, they CAN read your e-mail
now, so does this bother any of you???
probably not.. your not a target right??
this whole thing stinks!! anyone who has a viewpoint different than the " established "
norm, is possibly a suspect!!! can anyone else see this shit!!! god damn im pissed AGAIN!!!! " land of the free, home of the brave " as long as you think the way we do, and do what we say... FUCK THAT!!!

GOOD LUCK!!!

They can arrest and detain people for an unspecified length of time "under an umbrella" of suspicion. It increases the overall number of crimes considered terrorist acts and toughens the punishment for committing them.

Only the eavesdropping sections of the bill expire after December 31, 2005. And only if Congress doesn’t renew them.

After signing the new “Anti-Terrorism” bill, President Bush “called on Congress to tighten the pressure on terrorists around the world by implementing two treaties currently stalled in the Senate. “

“One treaty, called the "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings," would require countries to prosecute or extradite any person within their jurisdiction involved in a terrorist bombing. The United States signed the treaty in January 1998 and sent it to the Senate in September 1999, but it has never been ratified.”

“The other treaty, called the "International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism," has been held up in the Senate for the past year. It would require countries to prosecute or extradite any individuals believed to be raising or collecting money to sponsor terrorist activities.”

They went on to talk about how restrictive Australia's "immigration" policies are, there very pro-active, and do a lot of background research on those that apply for visas. They dont allow ANYONE with a criminal record, or anyone over 45yrs of age. They basically will stop you before getting on one of their airlines at the source or turn you around at the airport if you manage to make it into the country.

AND THATS WHAT IS SO FUCKING MADNING!!!!

i vent out here, perhaps the engagements out here are a coping mechanisim, i do not know.
im sure tho, we have enough life coaches that could share there " deep " insights into the " troubled cramer "...

if people feel as though your being targeted, perhaps you are.
unless i name people though, wouldnt you think that its just another " sweeping generalization "??? sure, ive made things
personal with people, but they get defended
by the great steve dykstra, ( oh and thanks for not removing me from the group, yet.)
(i do realize that inside this little realm,
you are god, and im thankful of your willingness to tolerate a ingnorant fuck, like myself.)

if you want change, go put on a new radio
station, or swap your soxs, swap your boyfriend/girlfriend with your buddy..whatever. but dont look for me to stop what im doing, or being who i am anytime in the future.. and if your one of those who cant stand me, GOOD! just dont
be around me!!! i will do my best to avoid you, besides i probably know you for the
spineless-two-faced-fake-ass-piece-of-shit you are, and dont want you wasting my time.

is that " sweeping " enough for you joe???

can I get an amen?

And yes, you are correct. I am god, both in this little realm of ours and the world beyond as well. You shall pay homage

they effecttivly make the fourth ammendment null-void for a " temporary " amount of time.
and now our own millitary will be enforcing state laws.... fucking great. bring on the black BDU's, bring on the blue helmets....
god damn, im so much safer now...

Lawmakers Debate Sending in the Troops — at Home

Friday, November 09, 2001
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Respond to Editor

Email this Article

WASHINGTON — For Americans, it's a jarring sight: Uniformed soldiers, armed and dangerous, patrolling the train stations of New York, the bridges of San Francisco Bay and the streets of dozens of cities in between.

It's a sight common in much of the rest of the world, but one that American leaders as far back as the Founding Fathers have scrupulously tried to avoid except in disaster areas and desolate stretches of the U.S.-Mexican border.

Now, it could become even more common.

A handful of U.S. senators and some in the Bush administration are calling for changes in a 150-year-old statute, known as the Posse Comitatus Act, that keeps the military out of the business of domestic law enforcement.

"We've got to figure out a new Posse Comitatus that allows the Department of Defense to step forward and defend America," insists Georgia Democrat Max Cleland.

The talk is pricking the ears of civil libertarians everywhere.

"We don't want the militarization of civilian life," said Todd Gaziano of the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

"There are obvious needs in a natural disaster or other emergencies that might necessitate some temporary assistance, but otherwise local police control is important," he added.

Posse Comitatus

Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 to end military occupation of the Reconstruction-era South. As originally written, it prohibits the armed forces from enforcing civil laws "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." The language was intended to echo the Founding Fathers' distaste for a standing federal army watching over Americans at home.

Since its passage, courts have interpreted the law to allow the military to provide equipment, training and facilities to local, state and federal law enforcement. To go beyond that, though, the president must declare a national emergency — a bio-terror attack, for example, or an insurrection or natural disaster.

Presidents have set aside the act several times, most recently in 1986 when the National Security Decision Directive authorized soldiers to patrol the borders for drugs. In 1992, 4,000 members of the Army and Marine Corps joined National Guardsman in Los Angeles to quell the riots that followed the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.

It is when these police actions end in violence — and they did in 1997, when Marine drug patrols on the southern border shot and killed a young goatherd — that questions arise about whether soldiers are better suited to war than civil service.

"The danger is they are not trained properly in confronting civilians," noted Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

"Military people are not known to be thinking about the Constitutional rights of the people across from them on the battlefield — that's the position you'd be putting them into if you had them enforce the law in American cities," he said.

Re-Examining Military Doctrine

The notion of amending the act first surfaced last month, when Sen. John Warner, R-Va., wrote the secretary of defense asking his department to "re-examine military doctrines," including Posse, to "enable our active duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in the war against terrorism."

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the Armed Services committee, said he "strongly agrees" with Warner on the issue. As of now, however, there is little more than talk on the issue.

"Certainly the Department of Defense is looking at all the ways to defeat terrorism and provide homeland security for our nation — but I'm not aware of any single situation right now where we are in a need of pursuing an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act," said Lt. Col. Dan Stoneking, a Defense Department spokesman. "I haven't heard of any concrete recommendation for any changes."

Besides, experts say, the Posse act as it stands does not preclude the U.S. from using soldiers to patrol nuclear facilities, enforce quarantines in the event of another bio-attack or even to restore domestic order, whatever that takes.

In fact, the military is already on the case. The Marines recently formed three counter-terrorism units charged with deterring, detecting and defending against terrorist activity on domestic soil.

Under normal circumstances, such moves might not be necessary, says Paul Schott Stevens, an attorney and former legal adviser to the National Security Council for President Ronald Reagan. “But we are facing circumstances that aren't normal," he says. "If we had a bio-attack tomorrow in the United States it might be necessary to impose and enforce quarantines. It isn't something that anyone predicted would happen, but the DOD needs to be thinking about expanding its role."

J. Kelly McCann, a Marine and special operations expert who runs his own training facility out of Virginia, says there is a role for the military in homeland defense, but perhaps not in law enforcement.

"That would be a mistake. No one wants big numbers of domestic military patrols," he said. The Military should be there to augment law enforcement and only when it is clearly out of the authority of local, state and federal enforcement agencies, he said.

Others argue that new times call for new attitudes about law enforcement.