Bending over and spreading for freedom...

Why are we losing our freedom, Washington?

So much for "land of the free," Davy Crockett would be very disappointed.

Is bin Laden winning?

Ever since the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001, American's economy and rights have been slipping away. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but his war agains the US continues and is winning the day.

Regulated freedom...

Remember when they told us Al Qadea hated us for our freedoms? Now I must ask - "What freedoms?"

Our loss of freedom

One of my greatest concerns over the past decade or two has been the steady erosion of our freedoms. From the Patriot Act to the TSA, we are being watched, searched and recorded by the government at every stage of our lives. I'm a nobody, but I'd bet a nickle that my blog has drawn at least a casual glance from some branch of government. It is intrusive, it is un-American and it is wrong. I can only hope that someday, in the near future, a leader comes along who will reverse all of this and return this nation to the leader in providing freedom to its citizens once again.


I found the following on DownWithTyranny

How the Patriot Act stripped me of my free-speech rights

By Nicholas Merrill, Published: October 25

Sometime in 2012, I will begin the ninth year of my life under an FBI gag order, which began when I received what is known as a national security letter at the small Internet service provider I owned. On that day in 2004 (the exact date is redacted from court papers, so I can't reveal it), an FBI agent came to my office and handed me a letter. It demanded that I turn over information about one of my clients and forbade me from telling "any person" that the government had approached me.

National security letters are issued by the FBI, not a judge, to obtain phone, computer, and banking information. Instead of complying, I spoke with a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a constitutional challenge against the NSL provision of the Patriot Act, which was signed into law 10 years ago Wednesday.

A decade later, much of the government's surveillance policy remains shrouded in secrecy, making it impossible for the American public to engage in a meaningful debate on the effectiveness or wisdom of various practices. The government has used NSLs to collect private information on hundreds of thousands of people. I am the only person from the telecommunications industry who received one to ever challenge in court the legality of the warrantless NSL searches and the associated gag order and to be subsequently (partially) un-gagged.

In 2004, it wasn't at all clear whether the FBI would charge me with a crime for telling the ACLU about the letter, or for telling the court clerk about it when I filed my lawsuit as "John Doe." I was unable to tell my family, friends, colleagues or my company's clients, and I had to lie about where I was going when I visited my attorneys. During that time my father was battling cancer and, in 2008, he succumbed to his illness. I was never able to tell him what I was going through.

For years, the government implausibly claimed that if I were able to identify myself as the plaintiff in the case, irreparable damage to national security would result. But I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that the FBI's gag order was motivated by legitimate national security concerns. It was motivated by a desire to insulate the FBI from public criticism and oversight.

In 2007, this newspaper made an exception to its policy against anonymous op-eds and published a piece I wrote about my predicament. In August 2010, the government agreed to a settlement, and I was finally allowed to reveal my name to the public in connection with my case, but I am still prevented -- under the threat of imprisonment -- from discussing any fact that was redacted in the thousands of pages of court documents, including the target of the investigation or what information was sought.

I don't believe that it's right for Americans' free speech rights to be bound by perpetual gag orders that can't be meaningfully challenged in a court of law. The courts agreed, but the NSLs and the gag orders live on. Now the FBI is supposed to notify NSL recipients that they can challenge a gag order -- but the government refuses to say how the court's ruling has been put into practice, or how many gag orders have been issued, challenged or reversed. This information is especially important since internal Justice Department investigations have found widespread violations of NSL rules by the FBI.

During the recent debate to reauthorize sections of the Patriot Act, two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) -- warned that the government is interpreting the law to conduct surveillance that does not follow from a plain reading of the text. "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry," Wyden said. As someone who had to keep silent and live a lie for the better part of a decade, in the false name of "national security," I know he's right.

The writer is executive director of the Calyx Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes "best practices" with regard to privacy and freedom of expression in the telecommunications industry.

Freedom isn't free

The World Is Going Nuts

Governments both national and local are using the spread of terrorism as an excuse to increase security and to spread a police state. We lose our freedoms to live our lives without government interference gradually, without paying much attention. Nowhere is this problem worse than in the UK.

From Boing Boing (click the link to read the whole story).

British cops spotted a Facebook message from a small-town guy who announced an "all-night" party at his house -- a BBQ to celebrate his birthday -- and so they scrambled an armed, helicopter-borne Delta force in body armor to break up the event under Britain's Draconian anti-rave laws. The party had 15 people at it, eating hamburgers. They hadn't put on any music. The police claim that sending out the chopper and the goon squad saved money, compared to what it would have cost to break it up if it had turned into a full-blown, multi-thousand person rave.

Bush and Keeping Us Safe

Bush and Co. do what they have to to keep us safe so we can enjoy our freedoms - which they must take away from us to keep us safe. Sort of. Something like that.

Loss of Liberty

Under the Bush Administration we've been losing our rights at an ever increasing rate. And nothing is stemming the tide. To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan in last week's Real Time with Bill Mahar, it is as if no one in the government ever heard Patrick Henry's famous quote, "Give me liberty, or give me death."

From Boing Boing - click the link for more and for references.

The Department of Homeland Security quietly moves closer to an invasive "Secure Flights" proposal that requires government-issued credentials for all air travelers -- and government permission for each flight! International "Advance Passenger Information System" rules were published Monday (effective February of 2008), making the U.S. version much more likely to pass.

Freedom of the Press

Another of our freedoms shot to shit - President Bush is now buring freedom of the press. From The Progress Report...

"ADMINISTRATION - SOLDIERS BARRED FROM TALKING TO MEDIA AFTER BUSH'S SPEECH: A day after President Bush announced an escalation plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, he spoke to 300 soldiers in a "teary-eyed" address at Fort Benning, GA. The Washington Post notes that the White House chose Ft. Benning hoping for "an unreservedly enthusiastic reception" to the President's speech, since military bases have usually been "reliable backdrop[s] for the White House." But instead, soldiers gave him only a "quiet response." The Los Angeles Times added that he "received a less enthusiastic reception than has been the case on his past visits to military bases to promote his Iraq policy" and the New York Times observed that the soldiers "clapped politely but showed little of the wild enthusiasm that they ordinarily shower on the commander in chief." Additionally, reporters were prohibited from talking to the soldiers -- many of whom will be deploying to Iraq soon -- after the speech, to "ensure that there would be no discordant notes." Wall Street Journal reporter Yochi Dreazen wrote that "reporters were shooed out of the dining hall by White House aides and public-affairs personnel from the military base, who said that soldiers were now off-limits to the media." Only hours later, after "an angry confrontation with both White House and Fort Benning media-affairs personnel," did the base offer to make a "small number" of selected soldiers available. Reporters, however, had to skip the opportunity because the press plane back to Washington was leaving in less than an hour."

Extinction Distinction - President Bush may go on denying the science of global warming even after the "warm-weather" animal breeds move onto the White House Lawn.

Could it be that, in George Bush's world, the cost of freedom is freedom?

Andy Borowitz did a funny piece a couple of days ago about the "surge" in troops proposed by President Bush. Andy was wondering if there would be a corresponding "insurge" of "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about it? Will our surge bring out even more of the radical Islamists? Or will our surge just push the insurgents out of Baghdad and into other provinces of Iraq where the troops aren't surging?

CNN reported this morning that only about 27% of Americans support the new GWB plan for a surge of troops in Iraq. Do you suppose Bush will have to invade the U.S. next in order to win our loyalty?

Poster

Support the war against terror - by surrendering all of your freedoms.

Fighting for Freedom in Iraq.

Mission Accomplished? Or maybe not.

Political Cartoons