The Bankrupted Morals of the U.S. Government! Demonstrators are Still Domestic Terrorist - Another Obama Promise Broken!

Photo - Thanks to The People's Voice at http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/index.php

UPDATE 9/25 - NOT CLOSING GUANTANAMO AS PROMISED - Information at bottom

Where are the morals of this U.S. government? Why don't people see, there is hardly one campaign promise Obama made to get himself elected, being kept now.

Another very important promise Obama made to the people is now being disgarded by the way side and Bush's policy will be kept enforce.

The administration is keeping the policy of detaining and holding whoever they want without charges and for how ever long they want too! Obama will not seek a change!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304427.html?hpid=topnews

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

Here is his campaign promise: Obama's Own Words:

Restore habeas corpus rights for "enemy combatants"
"The right of habeas corpus allows prisoners to ask a court to determine whether they are being lawfully imprisoned. Recently, this right has been denied to those deemed enemy combatants. Barack Obama strongly supports bipartisan efforts to restore habeas rights. He firmly believes that those who pose a danger to this country should be swiftly tried and brought to justice, but those who do not should have sufficient due process to ensure that we are not wrongfully denying them their liberty."

Just as he promised the U.S. would stop renditions of people - that too he changed on, once he got elected. The U.S. is continuing that Bush policy without ONE Change!

He had already broken his promise of transparency - as the largest spending bills in the U.S. history have only been out hours before they had to be voted on! Oh, jeez, what happened to that Obama saying "The Congress will not vote on any bill, until it has been available to the public for at least 5 days"?

Here are his Transparency Promises:
http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-details-promises-for-transparency-1107


Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama and Biden will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama and Biden will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.

Create a Public "Contracts and Influence" Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Obama and Biden will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Let's not even bother to get to the promise of lobbyist not being on his staff - almost every single one of his inner staff is lobbyist.

Oh, I would like to know, all those on his staff - including Geithner - did they have their bank accounts raided/seized by the IRS, like I did - since there are so many of them who have not paid taxes?

Obama is probably one of the biggest disappointments I have ever had, because I had Truely Believed we were going to get our country and rights back and all the repressive Bush policies would be wiped away.

The problem with the law is any U.S. citizen can be held under that law at this time too. In other words we have actually lost our rights to a speedy trial - the government could say "We are under suspision for terrorism, in one way or another". They have even labeled those who demonstrate or protest anything as "domestic terrorist".

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html

From the ACLU site above:

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.

Seizure of assets - Sec. 806: Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware. Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence. Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney. The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture. In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism.


Home : National Security : Terrorism and Emergency Powers
How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines "Domestic Terrorism" (12/6/2002)
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."" The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.
One recent example is the Vieques Island protests, when many people, including several prominent Americans, participated in civil disobedience on a military installation where the United States government has been engaging in regular military exercises, which these protesters oppose. The protesters illegally entered the military base and tried to obstruct the bombing exercises. This conduct would fall within the definition of domestic terrorism because the protesters broke federal law by unlawfully entering the airbase and their acts were for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion. The act of trying to disrupt bombing exercises arguably created a danger to human life - their own and those of military personnel. Using this hypothetical as a starting point, we will go through the USA PATRIOT Act and explore the new governmental powers that could be brought to bear on Vieques Island protesters whose conduct falls within the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.

Disclosure of educational records - Sec. 507: This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act requires a judge to issue an order permitting the government to obtain private educational records if the Attorney General or his designee certifies that the records are necessary for investigating domestic or international terrorism. No independent judicial finding is required to verify that the records are relevant. This means that the Attorney General may obtain the private educational records of a student involved in the Vieques protests by asserting that the records are relevant to a domestic terrorism investigation. These records may include information such as a student's grades, private medical information (counseling, abortions), which organizations the student belonged to, or any other information that the educational institution collects about its students.

Disclosure of information from National Education Statistics Act - Sec. 508: This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act requires a judge to issue an order for the government to obtain educational records that have been collected pursuant to the National Education Statistics Act. NESA includes a vast amount of identifiable student information from academic performance to health information, family income, and race. Until now, this information has been held to strict confidentiality requirements without exception. Again, all the government needs to certify is that the information is relevant to a terrorism investigation and the court has no choice but to issue the order.

Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants (Sec. 219): This section of the USA PATRIOT Act amends Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to authorize the government to go before a singe Federal magistrate judge in any judicial district in which activities relating to the terrorism may have occurred, to obtain a warrant to search property or a person within or outside the district. This means that the government could go to a single judge to get a warrant to search the property or person of the Vieques activists in New York, Chicago, California, or wherever else the protesters were from. If the government chose to go before a magistrate in New York, a person in California, who wished to seek to have the warrant quashed because he or she believed it was invalid, would have to find a way to appear before the New York court that issued the warrant. This would be a daunting task for most.
Post-PATRIOT Act Laws

Since passage of the PATRIOT Act, two other new laws have passed that implicate domestic terrorism.
Taxpayer Information - 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 6103(i)(3)(C) requires the Secretary of the Internal Revenue Service to provide taxpayer information to the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency responsible for investigating or responding to the terrorist incident. If abused, this provision could be used by law enforcement to gain access to confidential taxpayer information of political protesters.

The long and short of it, the promises we heard of our rights being given back to us, were just empty verbal talk. It was not real.

Where are the people to question his going back on almost every promise? Where is the media to ask and make Obama explain how he has not followed through on his promises, which is what got him the nomination and won him the election?!

As I see it, the United States is not just bankrupt in money terms - the United States government is also bankrupt morally!

UPDATE - 9/25 - Guantanamo not closing as Promised
link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404893.html?hpid=topnews

With four months left to meet its self-imposed deadline for closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Obama administration is working to recover from missteps that have put officials behind schedule and left them struggling to win the cooperation of Congress.

To empty the prison, the administration will need to find facilities to house 50 to 60 prisoners who cannot be released and who cannot be tried because of legal impediments, according to an administration official. The administration must also win congressional funding for the closure process, find host countries for detainees cleared for release, and transfer dozens of inmates to federal and military courts for prosecution.