Log in

No account? Create an account
civil liberties [entries|friends|calendar]
The Erosion of Civil Liberties: Nonpartisan

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

[19 Feb 2005|12:31pm]

I haven't read much of it yet, but You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties From Antidiscrimination Laws by David E. Bernstein looks pretty good, I must say.
Anyone else read it, or have thoughts on the matter?
post comment

Quiet, you activist you! [04 Mar 2005|12:05pm]

Campaign finance laws extend to blogging?


Crossposted from the libertarianism list, for your pleasure.
post comment

Freedom's Birthday [19 Apr 2005|09:07am]

April 19: Freedom’s Birthday
by Scott McPherson, April 2004 (Originally posted April 19, 2004)

Americans revere a great number of dates that hold special significance for their culture and history. The Fourth of July, Veterans Day, the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. — a quick glance through any calendar provides numerous other examples.

Yet the one day of most importance, to both the nation and its culture, is the one that is conspicuously absent from any mention of notable historical dates. No parades honor the fallen; no speeches in Congress remind us of their deeds; no wreaths are laid; no moments of silence requested.

On this sacred date no president will stand on hallowed ground to remind the American people of the important lessons of the nation’s founding: dedication to freedom — and the example of that principle borne out in dramatic practice.

The day Americans should mark on their calendar every year is April 19. On that day, 229 years ago, patriot militiamen from the New England countryside rose up against brute force, tyranny, and oppression. In so doing, they propelled from theory into vivid reality a revolutionary idea: the supremacy of the individual over government.

Full Article: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0404d.aspe
post comment

The Spirit of Winston Churchill Lives On [07 Jul 2005|10:38am]

[ mood | defiant ]

"I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange for taking others. That is why you are so dangerous. But I know you do fear that you will fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society. I can show you why you will fail. In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports, and look at our railway stations. And even after your cowardly attack you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dreams and achieve their potential. They choose to come to London as many have come before because they come to be free. They come to live the life they choose, they come to be themselves. They flee you, because you tell them how they should live."

-- London Mayor Ken Livingstone

1 comment|post comment

South Indian State of Andhra Pradesh [13 Sep 2005|10:49am]
Hi all,
I presume this community has no geographical boundaries.
I find some of the posts have pondered in various ways over the question: "Should rights be extended to those who do not recognise such rights in
respect of their opponents?"
I think this is a significant and very important question. I tend to answer "Yes, because that is how the State is on the legitimate side and the State has to ensure adherence to rights and due procedure. We need to see that the State is not just another bunch of armed people.The state has larger objectives. The state derives its legitimacy especially in democracies from the perspective that it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people"
2. For an interesting non-partisan discussion on human rights
in Andhra Pradesh, one may visit the following egroup:
post comment

[24 Jan 2006|02:16pm]


I got an email from the Kerry campaign today. He is of course voting against Alito. But he offers a couple of reasons that go well beyond partisan concerns. Well, anything withing MY definition of "partisan."

In a speech in 2000, Judge Alito even endorsed a theory suggesting that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which holds companies responsible for making products safe for kids, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which stands up to corporate abusers like Enron, are unconstitutional infringements on the President's power.


Judge Alito's record on civil rights is no better. He saw no legitimate question of discrimination in allowing an all-white jury to sentence a black man to death for killing a white man. His own colleagues have criticized him for ignoring employees' rights to be free from job discrimination. Judge Alito's clear bias is to keep victims of discrimination out of the court system - and to rule in favor of corporate interests.

Judge Alito's record on privacy rights is worst of all. In 1985, Judge Alito actually wrote a memo outlining a strategy to undermine Roe v. Wade by slowly chipping away at its protections. That same year, Judge Alito wrote in a job application that he did not believe in the constitutionality of the right to privacy. Judge Alito's views on privacy rights are not ambiguous; they are openly hostile.

I cannot see how this man can be on any bench, much less the Supreme Court. Even when I put on my Republican Emulation Glasses, I can't see any defensable reason for thinking him an addition to the court. He's a radical, activist idiologue. Please remind your Congressperson that a vote for the Constitution is a vote for political survival.

Full text within the cutCollapse )

post comment

[01 Mar 2006|05:46pm]

I've started a new community, scotus_news.

Intended for Supreme Court news and links (to op-ed articles, decisions, cases, and gossip about possible retirements or whatever) - no rants, discussion limited to comments.

If you're interested, please join and post.

post comment

[09 Mar 2006|12:32am]

On Wednesday the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted to block any investigation into the Bush administration’s illegal domestic spying operation and instead lend this crime a pseudo-legal cover. The action represents another MAJOR step in scrapping constitutional forms of rule and moving in the direction of an American police state.

Wake Up America.

We worked far to long and hard for these Rights to just give them up in one fell swoop. They are OUR rights, Our children's rights. We must always remember, This is OUR country. Governments should serve the people, NOT the interest of Corporations. Our current form of democracy (to the extreme that it can even be considered one) is run on the premise that it requires a class of elites to manage decision-making, and "manufacture" the general population's consent for policies that are supposedly beyond our capacity to develop and decide for ourselves.

Please, We are this country. Lets take it back. Peacefully of course.
post comment

in NYC? support right to protest 10/17/06 [16 Oct 2006|11:31am]


The UN 16, including Laurie Arbeiter and Ann Shirazi, arrested at the United Nations on September 19 for protesting war criminal Bush, will be arraigned tomorrow October 17, also at 100 Centre Street, probably in the same place. We will gather across the street in the park at 8:45

Laurie Arbeiter was arrested on September 10 at Ground Zero for holding a sign that said "Waiting for Peace". She will be arraigned on Friday, October 20 at 100 Centre Street, most likely in the first floor arraignment chamber. Please come to her arraignment at 9:30 AM

post comment

"enemy combatants," "torture" and freedom of information [07 Feb 2005|03:07pm]

Court Orders CIA to Comply With Request For Torture Records
February 2, 2005

Defense Department Illegally Withholding Photographs Depicting Abuse, ACLU Charges

NEW YORK--A federal judge today rejected an attempt by the Central Intelligence Agency to indefinitely delay the processing and release of critical documents pertaining to the torture or abuse of detainees held by the United States government. The ruling relates to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed more than a year ago by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations.


What is your opinion on the legal status of so-called "enemy combatants"?
Should the Defense Department be required to release these records? They are rumoured to be far worse than the previously-publicized Abu Gharib documents.
11 comments|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]