EROSION OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES; ABROGATION BY FIAT

OUR GOVERNMENT IS RUNNING ROUGHSOD OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

Our President accuses critics of his war policies as "aiding and abetting the enemy", a charge that can be construed as treason, a crime punishable by death. What other criticisms will he label as such? Will his minions investigate critics, persecute if not prosecute them?

An American citizen attorney-at-law committed the crime of 1). having fingerprints similar to a partial print found at the scene of a terrorist crime, 2). he had recently converted to the Islamic religion, and 3). as a defense atorney he had once defended a man accused of terrorism. The FBI submitted records to the federal judge written in such a way that indicated his guilt in the crime; he was detained for some months, with a possible death sentence hanging over his head, until the Spanish authorities correctly identified the true culprit, an Algerian national. See Worried's posting , "If You've Done Nothing Wrong."

Read Granny's post of 1/17/06, "A Real Threat to Homeland Security", about the investigation of the Quakers, a pacifist religion. They dare to protest the war? Are they subject to violent actions? The very tenets of their religion forbids violence; they merely exercise their Constitutional right to free speech. Note the following phrases:
Re: pacifist groups (like the Quakers): "...an administration that finds threatening, and goes into ...attack mode against people upholding their rights and responsibilities as citizens."
"...during 1970s -'...government effort to neutralize political dissidents."
"...the Pentagon also had labeled as 'threats' (the) counter-military protests..."
See: Granny's post 1/17/06 "The Pentagon and Your Kids", and 11/13/05 "No Child Left Behind (Uncle Sam Wants You)."

Parents and other citizens critical of the efforts to recruit our children in schools are a threat to Homeland Security?? In what way? How? Why? Because they dare criticize governmental policy? Because they dare try to stop the military (read that government) from recruiting their innocent, naive teenagers, who have insufficient knowledge to make informed decisions about becoming cannon fodder for Bush's war? If a young person chooses to make the military a career, he/she should make it without undue pressure and hype.

In "Democracy Zones, Supreme Court upholds dangerous free speech decision." A lone anti- demonstrator joined a group of pro- demonstrators, bearing his poster, as they bore theirs. He was removed to a more distant area. The courts, up to the Supreme Court, agreed with the separation. Only citizens favorable to the administration have a right to be nearby? The anti's must be at a distance and cannot merge with the others? Isn't this discrimination, robbing him of his right to equality with the pro's? http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/30977

I realize everyone has time limitations, but please do read the following:
www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0180.html
"and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

A modern twist to the quote of Rev. Martin Niemoler (1937) is at :
blog.comclub.org/1106689729/index_html
(hmm! Computer apparently wouldn't accept that as an url since it didn't highlight it, but I accessed it ok).

The curtailment of anyone's legal rights threatens every one of us. If the administration gets away with it, it sets a precedent for the future and so threatens the freedoms of our young today and future generations. It must be stopped, and only our elected representatives can stop it.