From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Silencing Political Dissent
"This analysis by Nancy Chang," writes Howard Zinn, "should be read by everyone concerned with a free society."
"Silencing Political Dissent: How the USA PATRIOT Act Undermines the Constitution" is a new FREE eBook from Seven Stories Press, by Nancy Chang of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
"In a crude exploitation of the anguish and concern over the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has sought to implement favored programs that have no relation to terrorism and would be sure to arouse protest if it could not cynically wield the weapon of "patriotism" to silence opposition. That includes steps to strengthen unaccountable executive power and curb independent thought and expression. Chang's study expertly reviews these threats, which should be understood and resisted by those who value their freedom and democratic rights."
--Noam Chomsky
Just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a jittery Congress—exiled from its anthrax-contaminated offices and confronted with warnings that more terrorist assaults were soon to come—capitulated to the Bush Administration’s demands for a new arsenal of anti-terrorism weapons. Over vigorous objections from civil liberties organizations on both ends of the political spectrum, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, better known by its acronym, The USA PATRIOT Act. The House vote was 356-to-66, and the Senate vote was 98-to-1. This hastily-drafted, complex, and far-reaching legislation spans 342 pages. Yet it was passed with virtually no public hearing or debate, and it was accompanied by neither a conference nor a committee report. On October 26, the Act was passed into law by a triumphant President George W. Bush. In this timely and lucid Open Media Special Edition, Nancy Chang examines how the new law endows the executive branch with vast unchecked powers, erodes civil liberties and privacy, and impacts immigrants. Writes Chang:
"The Administration’s blatant power grab, coupled with the wide array of anti-terrorism tools that the USA PATRIOT Act puts at its disposal, portend a wholesale suspension of civil liberties that will reach far beyond those who are involved in terrorist activities. First, the Act places our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association in jeopardy, by creating a broad new crime of “domestic terrorism,” and by denying entry to non-citizens on the basis of ideology. Second, the Act will reduce our already lowered expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment by granting the government enhanced surveillance powers. Third, non-citizens will see a further erosion of their due process rights as they are placed in mandatory detention and removed from the United States under the Act. Political activists who are critical of our government or who maintain ties with international political movements, along with immigrants, are likely to bear the brunt of these attacks on our civil liberties."
"This analysis by Nancy Chang," writes Howard Zinn, "should be read by everyone concerned with a free society."
Get the book for free at http://sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100208840
"In a crude exploitation of the anguish and concern over the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has sought to implement favored programs that have no relation to terrorism and would be sure to arouse protest if it could not cynically wield the weapon of "patriotism" to silence opposition. That includes steps to strengthen unaccountable executive power and curb independent thought and expression. Chang's study expertly reviews these threats, which should be understood and resisted by those who value their freedom and democratic rights."
--Noam Chomsky
Just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a jittery Congress—exiled from its anthrax-contaminated offices and confronted with warnings that more terrorist assaults were soon to come—capitulated to the Bush Administration’s demands for a new arsenal of anti-terrorism weapons. Over vigorous objections from civil liberties organizations on both ends of the political spectrum, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, better known by its acronym, The USA PATRIOT Act. The House vote was 356-to-66, and the Senate vote was 98-to-1. This hastily-drafted, complex, and far-reaching legislation spans 342 pages. Yet it was passed with virtually no public hearing or debate, and it was accompanied by neither a conference nor a committee report. On October 26, the Act was passed into law by a triumphant President George W. Bush. In this timely and lucid Open Media Special Edition, Nancy Chang examines how the new law endows the executive branch with vast unchecked powers, erodes civil liberties and privacy, and impacts immigrants. Writes Chang:
"The Administration’s blatant power grab, coupled with the wide array of anti-terrorism tools that the USA PATRIOT Act puts at its disposal, portend a wholesale suspension of civil liberties that will reach far beyond those who are involved in terrorist activities. First, the Act places our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association in jeopardy, by creating a broad new crime of “domestic terrorism,” and by denying entry to non-citizens on the basis of ideology. Second, the Act will reduce our already lowered expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment by granting the government enhanced surveillance powers. Third, non-citizens will see a further erosion of their due process rights as they are placed in mandatory detention and removed from the United States under the Act. Political activists who are critical of our government or who maintain ties with international political movements, along with immigrants, are likely to bear the brunt of these attacks on our civil liberties."
"This analysis by Nancy Chang," writes Howard Zinn, "should be read by everyone concerned with a free society."
Get the book for free at http://sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100208840
For more information:
http://sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCO...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
You know. She summed it up. I believe in free speech to a point. And the point will come crashing through your skull should be ever meet.
Just as freedom of thought allows you to decide for yourself whether to believe it, freedom of movement allows you to leave the theater if you choose, and property rights allow the theater manager to kick out anyone who raises such an alarm without good cause.
Except of course in Amerika, where everyone's too busy assuming everyone ELSE is a helpless child who needs to be guided, directed, and controlled.
*Sj
insensitive libertarian bastard, who loves it when self-professed anarchists invoke their Constitutional rights.
Do any of you Progressives out there remember what a miserable and opressive failure Marxism has proven to be?
>>>>, it is the right who have always and traditionally shouted down the left of whom they are so afraid of.
In today's america its the milk-toast liberals (not the radicals or the right) who have closed free speech through our friend 'political correctness'. Political correctness is a verbal straitjacket put on people all across america.
PC is worse in many ways than the Patriot Act - it is hidden, quiet, subdued while the Patriot Act at least in 'in your face' and obvious.
A good portion of those whom complain about PC are people that want to utter offensive and bigoted remarks with impunity but are afraid to do so, not because they'll be beaten down and imprisoned, but because they don't want their stupid, small-minded
BS to be scrutinized as it would reveal what an asshole they are.
Chessy, one question: How can 'PC' constitute itself as a verbal strait-jacket on America while simultaneously being "hidden, quiet, subdued"?
You're right—those who complain about PC are often those who would "utter offensive and bigoted remarks". Most of the time their criticism is based on the most baseless type of right-wing paranoia...
BUT is the far left (selfless and inept bunch) doing much better when they claim overarching government conspiracies control the fate of our peoples?
Both are garbage. Continue to view me as a "pompous bore", but at least be an individual. Karl Marx and Ayn Rand are both interesting to read but neither have all the answers...
Conspiracy theorists come in a variety of shades but there is nothing radical about such activity. Feel free to bat around straw-men, PB, but don't fool yourself that you're sticking it to anti-capitalists in the process. Was Karl Marx a conspiracy theorist? I'd be curious to know if you thought he was.
It's laughable that you draw a parallel between Marx -- a nuanced, dialectical thinker and revolutionary -- with that unsubtle, ahistorical and relentlessly small-spirited witch Rand. Just think of the two of them in a tete a tete. Enough said.
Accept that are interesting points brought up in both authors' writings--or remain an extremist pissant.
From the open contempt I’ve shown you , you probably DO THINK I favor the political tenants of the far right. If this is your belief, you are wrong—I respect their fact-filtered analysis about as much as yours. If you ever have the courage to admit the benefits of both laissez faire capitalism AND Socialism, you'll comprehend the answer, which lies somewhere in between.
And BTW, I don’t resent the hard working Castro laundromat attendant simply because of his/her humble station in life—my contempt is born when they decide to protest my right to invest in private enterprise; to build institutions or businesses that further the commerce of society. On the other side of things, I’ll be the first one to campaign for government regulation of international business; for the raising of minimum wages in third world countries; and for stiffer ecological restrictions.
You guys go ahead and lead the revolution. I’ll just keep paying my taxes in order to fund your court appointed attorneys. Ohhhhh… that was a big rock you through at the McDonalds window! : )
I'd be curious to know in what sense it takes "courage" to hold forth on the putative goodness of laissez-faire. I've never heard of anyone in this country ever being imprisoned or killed for such a thing. No, indeed, people make good money waxing on the benefits of the market.
Again -- if you read Marx at all you'd know that most anti-capitalists have a nuanced view of capitalism, despite your caracature. It needs to be understood historically, and categorical moral condemnations are pointless. However -- alienation and brutality are inherent to capitalism. Millions of children die of hunger and hunger-related disease each year, the global eco-sphere it appears is warming, and flora and fauna are being destroyed systematically. I believe that capital is set on brewing human and ecological catastrophe.
You claim that you'd be the first to campaign for government regulations to combat some of these injustices. But anyone who pays attention knows that your optimistic liberal platform is anachronistic in the face of capital's global power. What body is Marckesano going to appeal to to regulate capital? No such body exists!! Capital is in the process of codifying -- through ostensible regulatory agencies -- greater power of mobility and action than ever before. That, in a nut-shell, is why I say you're irrelevant -- for all your alleged independent-mindedness, you fail to understand capital's perogatives.
But you're no dummy (despite what I said in another thread), so perhaps you'll change your views.
By the way, I pay taxes (and as far as I can tell, get little in return).