www.lifeandliberty.info planning board
Sunday, August 31, 2003
 
What do you all think about trying to prod MofC into public stands?
- posted by Daniel @ 7:15 PM
 Based on my research, it seems as through 14 of the 25 supportive Members of Congress cited by LL.gov have taken public stands one way or the other on the USA PATRIOT Act.

I believe that Lis is in the process of checking out Members who've either authored or cosponsored Anti-PATRIOT legislation and that could cut down my list some.

However, if that research doesn't pan out, how about a page asking readers to query their congresspeople? Something like below:

----------------------
Where do they stand now?

The following Senators and Representatives made statements in support of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 that are now posted to www.lifeandliberty.gov, but apparently have not made any statements for or against since:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Representative Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE)
Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD)
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Representative Pitts (R-PA)
Senator Santorum (R-PA)
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL)
Representative Skelton (D-MO)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Senator Dorgan (D-ND)

If you know where these people currently stand on the USA PATRIOT Act, would you drop us a line at _____ with 1) What there stand is and 2) What source did you use to verify that stand - newspaper article, congressional letter, etc. If one of these silent Members of Congress is your Senator or Representative, please consider asking them where they stand and let me know that you won't reward silence with your vote.
---------------------------------

Just for the record, here in Alaska Rep. Don Young is a cosponsor of Rep. Sanders Freedom to Read Protection Act, Senator Lisa Murkowski has authored S 1552, the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, which is similar to the Sanders Bill. I wrote Senator Stevens asking him to support S 1552, but I got back a letter indicating he did not take positions on bills that do not appear before his committee and that had the nerve to remind that 3000 people were killed on Sept. 11th. I think that puts him into the "supports the Acta" crowd, but it's not explicit.

 
Congress Then and Now Completed (Quotes)
- posted by Daniel @ 7:04 PM
 I have finished my database searches of the 25 Members of Congress cited at LL.gov. I am cutting and pasting my results below. I'm suprised at the number of people who have not taken a public stand on USA PATRIOT since October 2001, but I'll address that in my next post.

----------------------
Congress Speaks - Then and Now

[All sources accessed through Electric Library unless otherwise noted.]
-------------------------------------------
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

-------------------------------------------
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)

---------------------------------------------
Senator Edwards (D-NC)

Then: Favorable Comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 26, 2001

Now: In August 2003, defended PATRIOT, but claimed Ashcroft abusing rights.

Author(s): Jon Sawyer
Source: The Tribune ; 08/10/2003
"He still believes he was right to support the war against Iraq and he defends his vote in favor of the USA Patriot Act. He assails Bush, saying the president has failed to develop a realistic post-war plan. And he lambastes Attorney General John Ashcroft saying Ashcroft has misused the Patriot Act's discretionary authority to trample on civil rights."


---------------------------------------------
Senator Maria Cantwell (WA)

Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001

Now: As of January 2003, appears to still support USA PATRIOT Act and strong proponet of use of biometrics.

Source: U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) CHAIRMAN U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) HOLDS HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ASA HUTCHINSON TO BE UNDERSECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR;
Washington Transcript Service 01-22-2003

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
HOLDS A HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ASA HUTCHINSON TO BE
UNDERSECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
JANUARY 22, 2003
----------------------------------------------------

Senator Charles Schumer (NY)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: In June 2003, gives qualified support for PATRIOT. Opposes expanded powers.
"Senior New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat, supported passage of the law but would wait until it "sunsets" in 2005 before making modifications.

"My view is we should not go further," said Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that produced the legislation. "I'm against those who want to repeal the Patriot Act and I'm against those who want to go further. ... Let's see what happens at the end of the sunset."

Schumer said he believes some changes, such as additional rules to govern how law enforcement officials can obtain information from public libraries, will be necessary. But he said he does not agree with those who believe the law has eroded civil liberties."
Source: Area lawmakers cautious about expanding Patriot Act; SUSAN ROTH
Gannett News Service 06-27-2003
-----------------------------------------
SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE (R-ME)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: As of April 2003, Senator Snowe had not made statements either for or against the PATRIOT Act. She does seem willing to at least listen to critics of the Act.
"U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe's press secretary said the senator had received the MCLU letter and had written to the Justice Department. "Sen. Snowe is asking the Department of Justice to answer us on the specifics raised by the Maine Civil Liberty Union and others," press secretary David Lackey said. "
Source: Bangor Daily News 04-19-2003
MCLU joins Calais librarian in concerns over Patriot Act
Byline: DIANA GRAETTINGER; OF THE NEWS STAFF
Edition: All
Section: C
------------------------------
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: To date, Senator Levin had not made statements either for or against the PATRIOT Act.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: As of September 2002, Senator DeWine continues to be an enthusiastic supporter of the PATRIOT Act, but does have oversight concerns about FISA, which he considers to be a valuable and under utilized tool.
"The FISA statute, as amended by the Patriot Act, creates a system of surveillance that is very powerful and, for the most part, completely secret. Accordingly, it is vital that we effectively balance the power of this statute and the need for intelligence information with clear, rational and coherent boundaries around the government's ability to conduct these
secret surveillances.
My belief is that the Patriot Act brings us closer to the proper balance. I'm not as convinced, as my colleagues have expressed so far -- or some of them have -- that the government's position is wrong in regard to this."
Source: CHAIRMAN U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT)
U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE FISA PROCESS
SEPTEMBER 10, 2002
--------------------------
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Then: (Senator Fitzgerald, Op-Ed, “Patriot Act Good Step in Fighting Terrorism,” The Pantagraph, November 18, 2001)
Now: To date, Senator Fitzgerald appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Representative SHELLEY MOORE Capito (R-WV)
Then: Favorable comments in Weekly Column, Representative Capito Website, October 26, 2001)
Now: To date, Representative Capito appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: To date, Senator Hagel appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: To date, remains a strong supporter of PATRIOT Act. Wants to eliminate 2005 sunset clauses and plans to introduce further anti-terror legislation currently known as the Victory Act.
----------------------------------
Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: To date, Senator Daschle appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Representative Michael Oxley (R-OH)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 23, 2001
Now: In September 2002, Representative Oxley called passage of the USA PATRIOT Act a "source of great pride for this committee (HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES) ."
Source: CHAIRMAN U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL OXLEY (R-OH) HOLDS HEARING ON TERRORISM FINANCING AND THE PATRIOT ACT;
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES HOLDS A HEARING
ON THE U.S. PATRIOT ACT
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
----------------------------------
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: Senator Feinstein appears open to changes in USA PATRIOT. In October 2002, Senator Feinstein held a hearing where she said:
"The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the full committee, the full judiciary committee, with the knowledge that it had been drafted and negotiated rather quickly. Only six weeks elapsed between proposal and passage. And the Congress would need to exercise vigorous oversight to prevent abuses and solve unintended problems. That's one reason why some of the tools in the USA PATRIOT Act will sunset in a few years. If the new tools of this act are working well and effective, clearly we should keep them and perhaps, if needed, even strengthen them. If they're being abused, we should eliminate them or add new safeguards."
Source: CHAIRWOMAN U.S. SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN (D-CA) HOLDS HEARING ON IMPLEMENTING ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS;
U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY,
TERRORISM, AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION HOLDS A HEARING TITLED
"TOOLS AGAINST TERROR: HOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS IMPLEMENTING
NEW LAWS IN THE FIGHT TO PROTECT OUR HOMELAND."
OCTOBER 09, 2002
----------------------------------
Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: In August 2003, called PATRIOT act a "blind spot" in the American justice system.
"You always protect civil liberties. If you are sensitive to and care about civil liberties, you can make provisions to guarantee that there is not this blind spot in the American justice system that there is today under the Patriot Act. And I can guarantee you one of the things I look forward to most as president is the opportunity to be able to appoint somebody attorney general who's not John Ashcroft."
Source: Interview: Senator John Kerry discusses why he should be the next president of the United States; RENEE MONTAGNE Morning Edition (NPR) 08-18-2003
----------------------------------
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: To date, Speaker Hastert appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Representative Pitts (R-PA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 26, 2001
Now: To date, Representative Pitts appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Senator Santorum (R-PA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 26, 2001
Now: To date, Senator Santorum appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Senator Specter (R-PA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: In February 2003, Senator Specter, along with Senators Grassley and Leahy, introduced the "Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003" (S 436) which would expand the public reporting of actions taken against US citizens under FISA rules. Source: Congressional Record, February 2003. In various hearings between September 2002 and June 2003, Senator Specter has expressed frustration at DOJ resistance to Congressional Oversight.

----------------------------------
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
To date, Senator Graham appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
----------------------------------
Representative Skelton (D-MO)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 28, 2001
Now: To date, Representative Skelton appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
-----------------------------------
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act December 19, 2001
Now: To date, Representative Lofgren appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
-----------------------------------
Senator Dorgan (D-ND)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: To date, Senator Dorgan appears to have not made any statements for or against the USA Patriot Act.
-----------------------------------
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Then: Favorable comments about USA PATRIOT Act October 25, 2001
Now: In May 2003, Senator Boxer introduced S 1158, "A bill to exempt bookstores and libraries from orders requiring the production of tangible things for foreign intelligence investigations, and to exempt libraries from counterintelligence access to certain records, ensuring that libraries and bookstores are subjected to the regular system of court-ordered warrants. " also known as the "Library and Bookseller Protection Act"
Source: THOMAS http://thomas.loc.gov
Saturday, August 30, 2003
 
There's less than meets the eye about "Congress Speaks"
- posted by Daniel @ 9:34 AM
 I just noticed that "Congress Speaks" section of LL.gov has 36 supportive quotes about the PATRIOT Act, but these quotes come from only 25 Members of Congress. Several Members are quoted multiple times.

Do you suppose that is another rhetoric technique by DOJ to puff up Congressional support for the Act? i.e. give the impression of screen after screen of Congresspeople telling us all how good anti-terror legislation is for us, even if they have to pad it with similar quotes from the same people?

I hope to have my "then and now" quotes done by Sunday evening, though I've run into a few members who seemingly have said NOTHING on the Act since October 2001. Could people keep an eye out for quotes going either way from:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE (R-ME)
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) (Tho he did try to strength FOIA provisions in Homeland Security Act.)

Thanks!
Friday, August 29, 2003
 
Dec of Indep
- posted by Rich @ 11:33 PM
 Here's one rewritten Declarationof Independence:
Declaration of Independence from King George the Younger

 
More buyers' remorse from Congress
- posted by Lis @ 10:39 AM
 I was going to post this as a response, but decided to make this a separate entry.

TalkLeft: Ashcroft Slips in Polls, Meets Republican Oppostion points up another place to point out Congressional regret: who is supporting the various anti-USAPAT bills that are moving through Congress, thru lists of co-signers, voting records and any speeches or press releases or statements. I should be able to get some of this from Thomas.

 
Declaration of Independence
- posted by Lis @ 8:59 AM
 No, Daniel, I don't think you're posting too much. I'm only wishing that I had the time to write and post more on this.

I, too, noticed the irony in their excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, which is why my draft version included the following sentence, which says that people should abolish governments hostile to those ends.

I don't remember which civil liberty outrage inspired this, but shortly before July 4th, I looked at the Declaration of Independence and realized that many of its clauses apply to our current George. I started both translating the preamble into the vernacular and trying to find the parallels between Jefferson's list of "facts" and Bush administration policy. I never completed that page but when I saw the banner on LL.gov, I started thinking of ways I/we could reuse the vernacular of the preamble to make sure people understand what the Founders really meant and thus, how Ashcroft was misusing the phrase.
 
Two new changes at lifeandliberty.gov
- posted by Daniel @ 12:58 AM
 lifeandliberty.gov site has made two changes since I last took its "snapshot":

1) There is now a PDF version of the first page.

2) There is a "Privacy and Security" policy that you can read in full at http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/p_security.htm. Two extracts seem worthwhile here:

From Privacy Policy:

"This information is primarily collected for statistical analysis and technical improvements to the site. This government computer system uses software programs to create summary statistics, which may be used for such purposes as assessing what information is of most and least interest, determining technical design specifications, and identifying system performance or problem areas. In certain circumstances, however, we may take additional steps to identify you based on this information and we may share this information, including your identity, with other government agencies."

Comment:
I wonder what "certain circumstances" they mean, besides criminal activity, which they should have said if that's all they meant.

And their Security policy:

"SECURITY

For site security purposes and to ensure that this service remains available to all users, this Government computer system employs software programs to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals evidence of possible abuse or criminal activity, such evidence may be provided to appropriate law enforcement officials. Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this server are strictly prohibited and may be punishable by law, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996."

Not that any of us are planning to do anything with their servers.

I hope I'm not posting too much. - Daniel
 
LCHR rebuttal
- posted by Rich @ 12:50 AM
 Lawyers Committee For Human Rights has a rebuttal on
Ashcroft's August 19 Patriot Act Speech

via beSpacific http://www.beSpacific.com

 
lifeandliberty.gov irony - read next few sentences
- posted by Daniel @ 12:48 AM
 Hi All,

I just noticed something deeply ironic about the patriotic header used at the DOJ site. You'll notice that it quotes the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and ends with "That to secure these rights, governments are instititued..."

If we read on, we see "among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles..."

I personally find it interesting that letting the quote hang where DOJ leaves it implies that securing liberty is the function of government, when the next several sentences put in solidly in the hands of the people.

I don't know if it's a clever use of rhetoric, or an unintentional case of editing.

When we get this site up, perhaps each page could either have a different quote from the Declaration, or other Founding Father quotes that many of you have been finding.

- Daniel
Will have more "Congress speaks second thoughts" quotes over the weekend unless
Thursday, August 28, 2003
 
Tech help needed
- posted by Lis @ 9:05 AM
 BTW, thanks everybody for doing such excellent work so far. I'm really pleased and impressed.
My apologies for not having the site up yet.

Seriously, does anybody know anything about setting up name servers and/or DNS settings within a Windows environment? My registration service doesn't recognize the name server I want to use, which makes me think the nameserver needs further configuration on the server side, and I don't know where to start on that.
Alternately, does anybody else have a good host where we could put the domain?

Either would resolve the problem...
 
ACLU: PATRIOT Propaganda: Justice Department's PATRIOT Act Website Creates New Myths About Controversial Law
- posted by Lis @ 8:59 AM
 Just found this page on the ACLU site -- a five page PDF debunking the myths on lifeandliberty.gov.
Might be a useful starting point. They do give permission to redistribute their materials noncommercially "as long as they are not modified" and credit is given. That means it should also be okay to use chunks as long as we attribute it properly without asking further permission.
 
Quick note on Blogger technology
- posted by Lis @ 8:51 AM
 Sorry for being so distant; RL interferes.
I just published a couple of posts that have been sitting since yesterday. FYI:
Post only stores a weblog entry to the Blogger database.
Post and Publish stores the entry and also causes the pages of your blog to be generated and transferred to your website.
So, when you're writing and editing and not ready to make your comments public, just use the Post button. But once you're ready to put it on the website, use the Publish button, otherwise it stays hidden where nobody but me may notice.

If you really aren't ready to make something public, you can also mark a post as Draft, which will prevent it from being published.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
 
Bank blacklisting
- posted by Rich @ 1:27 AM
 TheChristian Science Monitor had an article called "Blacklisted by the bank"
http://search.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p15s01-wmen.html
It talks about a Section 314 of the Patriot Act investigation
concerning financial transactions. The article also talks about government watch lists and how does one get off them.
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
 
Web web sites, Conf
- posted by Rich @ 9:15 PM
 Greetings

Both Americalivefree.org and july4.bmgbiz.net has good
quotes from Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Franklin we could use
http://www.americalivefree.org/index.html
http://july4.bmgbiz.net/inside.html
Common Dreams has very good Victory Act article
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0821-11.htm
Washington Week had a segment on the Patriot Act by
Gloria Borger Will try to get link
There's a national Bill of Rights conference
http://www.grassroots-america.org/

Cheers!


 
Congress' Buyer's regret on USA PATRIOT
- posted by Daniel @ 11:34 AM
 Good Morning!

Over the weekend I started researching statements of members who congress who were quoted as supporting the Act back in Oct 2001 looking for signs that they had reconsidered or reversed their support.

I wanted to post what I had so far so people could give me feedback on format and whether a quote and citation would be enough or whether we should only pull quotes from items that we can link to the full text of.

-----------------------------
Congress' Buyer's regret on USA PATRIOT Act

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner WI (R) - Voted in favor of USA PATRIOT
(H.R. 3162, House Roll Call Vote #398, October 24, 2001)
April 2003
"WASHINGTON-House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner said Thursday he would fight any effort now to make permanent many of the expanded police powers enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of the USA PATRIOT Act.
"That will be done over my dead body," said Sensenbrenner in an interview.
The Wisconsin Republican also said it was "way premature" for Congress to consider a new package of anti-terrorism proposals being drafted by the Justice Department-a so-called "Patriot Act Two."
Before that happens, he said, the "burden of proof" is on the Justice Department to prove the merits of what he called "Patriot Act One."
Source: Author(s): Craig Gilbert
Journal: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ; 04/17/2003
-------------
Richard Armey R-TX (Voted for USA PATRIOT Act)
(H.R. 3162, House Roll Call Vote #398, October 24, 2001)

March 2003
Author(s): Clark, Drew
Source: CongressDaily ; 3/14/2003, p5, 2p

"Armey faulted Ashcroft for failing to curb Justice Department bureaucrats who seek ever-expanded police powers. “Before they ever got through with a full implementation of the authorities under the PATRIOT Act, they were back asking for more,” Armey said. "

---------------------

Sen. Charles Grassley R-IA (Voted for USA PATRIOT Act)
(Record Vote #313, October 25, 2001)

March 2003

Author(s): Ota, Alan K.
Source: CQ Weekly ; 3/8/2003, Vol. 61 Issue 10, p542, 6p, 9c

"Grassley has rallied with liberal Democrats in an effort to slow down an 86-page draft bill -- dubbed "Patriot II," successor to the USA Patriot Act -- asking for expanded powers to fight terrorism.
"We had some doubts about the law," he said. "Let's leave it alone, see how it works, and see if we need anything.""
---------------------

Sen. John Edwards (Voted for USA PATRIOT Act, still believes in Act, thinks Ashcroft is eroding civil liberties)
(H.R. 3162, House Roll Call Vote #398, October 24, 2001)

August 2003

Author(s): Jon Sawyer
Source: The Tribune ; 08/10/2003

"He still believes he was right to support the war against Iraq and he defends his vote in favor of the USA Patriot Act. He assails Bush, saying the president has failed to develop a realistic post-war plan. And he lambastes Attorney General John Ashcroft saying Ashcroft has misused the Patriot Act's discretionary authority to trample on civil rights."

---------------------------------

Hope are well. -- Daniel
Saturday, August 23, 2003
 
Great photo of Ashcroft
- posted by Lis @ 10:34 PM
 I would love to use this photo in the site, but don't want to violate copyright, so I emailed Reuters and asked how much for redistribution rights on a noncommercial website. No response yet.
I'm also thinking of linking to or asking for permission to reproduce this bio of Ashcroft, which on first glance seems pretty good, though the footnote links appear to be broken.
Friday, August 22, 2003
 
- posted by Rich @ 11:56 PM
 Just checking in. First time I'm using Blogger.
Since it's late and I haven't been to my favorite web sites,
I'll post more Saturday
 
Dispelling the Myths - Not just the ACLU
- posted by Daniel @ 5:19 PM
 Looking over the "dispelling the myths" section, I noticed that all three "myths" begins with "The ACLU Says..."

This might be a good place to drop in quotes and reports to links at conservative think tanks like the CATO institute. The URL above points to their Civil Liberties page, and just yesterday Timothy Lynch of Cato posted a column called Patriotic Questions in the National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lynch082103.asp .

Now, I've really come to appreciate the ACLU, but given how these four letters make millions of Americans tune out, I think it would be worth to include opinions from the right side of our coalition.

- Daniel
 
Commenting now enabled
- posted by Lis @ 4:23 PM

Okay, I've just created a comments box for each post. Email addresses are hidden to everybody but me (as administrator) to prevent them from being harvested by spammers.

If anybody wants to join this little community, post a comment, include your email address, and I will send you an invite.

Comments also have an RSS feed, which will be here once somebody posts a comment, if anybody wants to keep totally current.

I've also modified the posting form in this journal to recognize carriage returns, rather than require HTML tags, which should make text a bit clearer to reaad and easier to write.

That's all for now


 
Have files to upload/think we should keep polling section
- posted by Daniel @ 2:15 PM
 Hi Lis,

Thanks for giving us a focus.

I wanted to let you know that last night I downloaded all of lifeandliberty.gov's files. If you'd find them a useful starting point and have somewhere I could FTP or mail them to you, let me know. Even with all their graphics, it weighs in at less than 600K. I agree that we should make it accessible and HTML standard.

For the whole group - my software package at home will let me take periodic snapshots of lifeandliberty.gov - does anyone think this would be worthwhile, say in case they make changes and then say they're being criticised for non-existant claims? If we spot a change, we could post the original along side the new in a "memory hole" section. I don't know if my program has an easy way of showing what's changed.

I'm pretty sure that I can start digging into the Congressional quotes section this weekend, with the objective of finding members who now oppose some or all of the Act.

The "Congress Passes" section might be a good place to put quotes from that time from people complaining about the lack of hearings or the opportunity to fully read the legislation prior to voting.

Finally, (please forgive the length of this posting). I noticed that Lis' mockup doesn't keep the polling data. I think it might be helpful to keep this, along with links to conflicting polls. If you look at the URL above, you'll find a quote that says:

"Polls, he said, show overwhelming public support for the law. For instance, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll last month said Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, call the Patriot Act "a good thing for America."

Other polls show different results depending on how the question is worded. A poll taken by CBS News in late May showed 52 percent of Americans were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about "losing your civil liberties as a result of recent measures enacted by the Bush administration to fight terror." "

I guess that's enough for now. Thanks again for giving the rest of us a spark. - Daniel
 
- posted by Rachel @ 12:55 PM
 Hey, guess it accepted me after all.

I can certainly help with coding this just as soon as school has started; probably September 6 will be the first day that I can really sit down and work on it.
 
Copied from Riba Rambles
- posted by Lis @ 11:01 AM

I've spent some time poking around at the official lifeandliberty.gov site. Here's some of what I found:

Here's what I'd like to see out of lifeandliberty.info:

  • A website that is entirely valid HTML and meets accessibility guidelines
  • Rebut all falsehoods and misleading info on the government site point-by-point
  • Provide factual information, with sources whereever possible
  • Avoid exaggerated claims that won't hold up (anything dubious may make the rest of the site appear less plausible)
  • Respect for other people's intellectual property. Limit quotes and excerpts to fair use. We can always link to longer pieces if we can't get permission to reproduce.

We might consider expanding the coverage of the site to include further information on the VICTORY Act and action items and other things beyond a mere debunking, but the primary goal of this site is to counteract the government site, so that should be the first priority.

As much as possible, I want this site to be above-the-board, upfront and honest. The cleaner we can keep our noses, the less chance we have of being accused of the lies we're trying to rebut.

I've got a lot on my plate, and can't do all this on my own.

So, what needs to be done?

It's ambitious, but it all seems feasible, and the more people working together, the easier it will be.

So, who's with me!?

 
Analysis of lifeandliberty.gov
- posted by Lis @ 10:31 AM

The 11 pages on lifeandliberty.gov, with my comments:

The front page
Anti-Terror Record of Accomplishments
Major Speeches
Besides fisking these, surely we can find more and better speeches to quote than the ones they provide:
Passed by Congress
the voting record; maybe spice it up with quotes from Congressmen who say they felt rushed or pressured, plus some quotes by Feingold and others who voted no.
Congress Speaks
quotes; again shouldn't be too tough to find opposing viewpoints
Stories and Articles
this is where we can probably have a field day!
Support of the People
opinion polls -- ignorance is bliss!
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act
Along with the This is the most important page to rebut

I was also thinking of adding a section with quotes from the Founding Fathers and former presidents and Supreme Court decisions -- things that point out how far this falls from our nation's ideals.

The government site contains only three external links that I could find:

Again, I'm sure we can come up with other worthy sites to link, including the ALA, ACLU, EFF and Patriotwatch.



Powered by Blogger Pro™
Comments by: YACCS