Constitution comes undone

2-18
To the editor:
I have pulled together a summary of an article named "The Homeland Rebels Against the Security Act" in the Hightower Lowdown, Vol. 5, No.1, Jan. 2003, written by Phillip Frazer. After reading this article, I have been thinking the norm for the U.S. government is becoming so extreme, it seems we have lost our way.
President Bush and his cronies in government are heading down a path where we must throw democracy overboard to beat terrorists. These actions come in the form of the USA Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. Both are draped in the American flag with the message from the administration that we need all hands on deck as Bush fights the evildoers.
Unfortunately, the results of these two acts will undo the Constitution, control the American people and give corporate America a bonanza of giveaways, while doing nothing to alleviate terrorism.
Attorney General Ashcroft has ordered that all male non-citizens of Arab or Muslim descent are to be rounded up, interviewed, photographed and fingerprinted by the Internal Revenue Service. Most of these people hold valid work permits, or study visas. They have been locked up without the opportunity to phone their families or friends. This nightmare is scaring the heck out of tens of millions of immigrants, but will it make the U.S. safer?
The USA Patriot Act allows the attorney general to lock up anyone, without trial, if they are even accused of being a "terrorist." Under this definition eco-defenders, anti-globalization activists and anti-abortion crusaders can be defined as terrorists.
Meanwhile, the Homeland Security Act (HSA) is big brother putting all Americans under military surveillance. 'Corporate culture has already been doing this for awhile through information gathering of everything we eat, wear or drive through credit cards usage. They know where we live how much we earn, and who we call.
The Department of Homeland Security (HSD) is a massive domestic spying operation managed by the U.S. military. Admiral John Poindexter, famous for his conviction for overseeing arms sales to Iran, to overthrow the democratic government of Nicaragua in the late '70s, is the head honcho for this centralized database.
So far this department has done more to outrage Americans than to pinpoint terrorists. Even conservatives like Phyllis Schafly, William Safire and Dick Armey are so alarmed that they have joined ranks with the ACLU.
Twenty-four city councils all over the country are standing up in defense of their inalienable civil rights. Sixty more cities are debating whether to do the same. Conservative as well as liberal communities are speaking against the intrusion of our federal government in the name of national security.
The Homeland Security Act does not allow the citizens of this country to know what our administration is doing in our name. Bush appointee Tom Ridge, assigned to oversee the department, has included a provision prohibiting the government from releasing information. Any mega-corporation can keep us from knowing what mistakes they have made, like an embarrassing chemical spill, for instance. Also these secrets cannot be used in civil lawsuits brought against the company by any state or federal agency or any private party. This could mean that enforcement of our environmental, health, safety and consumer protection laws go down the drain.
Adding insult to injury, unlike other federal agencies, the Homeland Security Department can meet in secret with advisory committees (even advisors not related to national security), who are composed of corporate industry representatives.
Another amendment stuck in the HSA states that drug companies who put mercury-based chemicals in vaccines, causing autism in children, cannot be sued. The bill reaches back to pending lawsuits against Eli-Lilly, who have been accused of such a foul-up. The pharmaceutical industry moguls have been large contributors to the present GOP. No one claims credit for this additional amendment in the bill, but Eli-Lilly has been given a seat on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
This act allows the Homeland Security Department to contract with companies that leave the United States to set up business in the Caribbean and avoid paying taxes. Until now businesses who don't pay taxes have been prohibited from getting government contracts, thanks to an amendment written by recently deceased Sen. Paul Wellstone.
So, with these new acts, does this help U.S. citizens feel any safer from terrorism? Because our leaders are blind to other people's rage, and are so busy protecting themselves, getting re-elected and protecting their territory in divisive ways, there is no real action coming out of all of this "reform" other than impinging on our freedoms.
In the meantime, the Saudi Arabian aristocracy have been protected by our government. Their wealth spawned and financed the atrocities on Sept. 11, 2001 through educating young men on terrorist tactics. We are going to war with Iraq who has not been directly connected to Al Queda.
As I have been gathering information for this essay, Friday, Feb. 7, 2003, PBS's "Now" with Bill Moyers provided details of a Justice Department draft of a bill designed to extend the powers of the Patriot Act.
Here is an excerpt of this latest development from the program:
"A document, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, outlines significant broadening of law enforcement powers, including domestic intelligence gathering, surveillance, and the authorization of secret arrests, while decreasing public access to information and judicial review authority. "
Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of "Terrorism and the Constitution" assessed the document for Now with Bill Moyers and the Center for Public Integrity. "I think this is a quite radical proposal. It authorizes secret arrests. It would give the attorney general essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests. It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations," he told "Now's" senior Washington correspondent, Roberta Baskin. "And it has not been put on the table so there can be a discussion about it."
Also, Bill Moyers interviews executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis. When asked to gauge the significance of the document Lewis responds: "It just deepens and broadens, further extends the first Patriot Act," he says. "And it's arguably a more thorough rendering of all the things law enforcement and intelligence agencies would like to have in a perfect world. I think it's a very tough document when it comes to secrecy and surveillance."
There has to be a balance between liberty and security. Watching the program, Lewis said the Bush Administration would likely sneak this Patriot Act II in when the country and Congress are focused on the drama of war with Iraq. This deepened USA Patriot Act would give more power to law enforcement while citizens are being abused by government. Government could bypass courts and grand juries when doing surveillance on anyone. There is no provision for oversight or accountability of government. Not even Congress is able to oversee the Executive Branch (since this act was kept secret from them as well, according to "Now"). It is clear that there should be debate about the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.

Kale Starbird
Ojai

Expatriates find no happiness

2-21
To the editor:
There is continuous clamor, "Let the inspectors do their job!" OK, let them. As an aid to their job the United States elected to overfly the area with a U-2 (spy plane). Hussein demanded he be given a 48-hour notice of the time, the itinerary and the radio codes. The United States refused. Subsequently, the plane flew over Iraq and nothing new was discovered. It was learned later that the U.N. "honored" Hussein's "request" and supplied the information he wanted. So much for the integrity of the inspection program.
"President" Martin Sheen and others among the Hollywood actor group, stand opposed to any war because of the cost of lives of innocent civilians. I guess the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 were "guilty civilians."
Now we come to expatriate, D.L. Howard-Ady (OVN, Feb. 19), who offers that the U.S. is the "real" evil empire, tied in with Britain and Israel. He states this is a conclusion he reached as a former British intelligence officer. I always presumed intelligence was something you had to have before you applied for the job.
It never fails to amaze me that expatriates left their homeland because they weren't happy there. In due course, they vent their displeasure with this country. I wonder if these people could find happiness anywhere. Maybe there is some vacant land in this world where all the dissidents can gather and set up the model government we so desperately need to learn from.
Another thought: I'd be happy to purchase a one-way ticket to Iraq for Mr. Howard-Ady where he can offer his services to Hussein and become his left-hand man. However, I would expect reimbursement from Hussein for this valuable commodity. He can take his friend, Allah Akbar, too.

George Marshall
Ojai

Supports troops, President Bush

2-23
To the editor:
I have been silent too long on the impending war with Iraq. Now it is my time and my right as an American to express my thoughts and concerns about the precarious position our country is in.
President Bush, whom I completely support, has been thrust into a crisis no one ever even conceived could happen when the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. New in his presidency, he was blamed for not acting properly on threats, the economy (which was going downhill before he came into office) was blamed on President Bush.
I feel the president is doing everything he can to ensure our safety. We are not supposed to be informed of everything our intelligence community has learned. We know nothing of what our leaders are planning and discussing in closed doors to, again, ensure our safety. I don't want to know. I want to be safe and protected. They know of threats and dangers and react accordingly.
Remember wars past, the veterans we all honor on the Fourth of July and the losses their families sustained - for freedom, for peace, for people they will never meet.
If you can grasp the enormity of what our past presidents had in their hearts when they made the decision to go to war, think about our President Bush. I truly believe he doesn't want this war, but whatever information he has received, feels it's time. He is not in this alone. He is not the "Lone Ranger" as some people spew. It is simply a stupid, uninformed, catchy little phrase meant for idle gossips.
I will make this clear, and I care not what the Democrats and other various protesters that are against our president feel about me. I don't want a war. I don't want innocents killed and I don't want to be a sitting duck again. I will never forget 9/11. I will support our president and our troops and all the foreign support we get. America is the baby-sitter of every country on Earth. How soon the world forgets our kindness.
God bless America and God bless President Bush.

Laurel Kurtenbach
Ojai

Drug use survey sample misleads

2-24
To the editor:
In your Friday, Feb. 21, issue, there was a reference to the results of the Ojai Valley Youth Foundation's California Healthy Kids Survey. This was probably the fifth time I have seen the survey results interpreted in the OVN over the past few weeks, and know that the results are being studied with school policy and community mindset being influenced by them. I truly believe the survey gives us an important look into drug use among a portion of our youth, but I am afraid that by not taking into account how the survey was taken, we might not see how the results may not be a true marker of the present danger and true scope of drug use in our valley.
In order to take the Healthy Kids Survey, students not only had to sign an agreement themselves to participate, but they also needed to get a signed consent form from their parents. This raises many questions that would have a direct bearing on the outcome of the survey. For instance - how many of the 11th-graders at Nordhoff who are using hard drugs like OxyContin and black tar heroin would even consider participating in a questionnaire where they would be asked to detail their own drug use, or their friends' - whether they are told it would be "anonymous" or not? How many of the students misusing drugs had parents who knew about the survey? How many of those cared that their child filled it out (truthfully)? Which students got the chain of paperwork completed? Would a lack of participation from the most "at risk" students mean that the results we are looking at in this survey profoundly underplay our current situation? In addition, how does a survey that is a couple of years old detail drug use in a substance like OxyContin that has been spreading at an alarming rate just these past 12 months, where overdoses in our ER are becoming commonplace and our community has already had to suffer the loss of several of our young adults?
What I'm trying to say is that I believe that the percentage of students (I believe that it was in the low 50 percent) that took the Healthy Kids Survey represented students who maybe were less apt to be taking drugs (although still at great risk), and that the results of the survey should be looked at in that light.
One of the past quotes from your newspaper was from a presentation of the findings of the Healthy Kids Survey by the OVYF to the Ojai Unified School Board. It was printed that the survey showed student use of hard drugs like heroin and opiates (OxyContin) to be "up slightly."
With quotes like this, we have to consider that there is a really good chance we are making a mistake by relying on a survey that only scratched the surface, and what if this survey really only reflected our best-case scenario - and still it reported that drug abuse among Ojai youth to be higher than the national average in most categories?
What about other statistics we are hearing relating to student drug use?
The OVN reported that there is a rise in juvenile arrests in the Ojai Valley in 2002, specifically narcotics arrests that includes juvenile substance abuse. Police Chief Pentis was quoted as saying that even though the arrests were on the rise, the "stats do not reflect all the nonarrest methods of closure in juvenile arrest cases."
The question again arises - what are the real numbers and what more can we do?

Maggie Cerminaro
Ojai

© 2003 The Ojai Valley News

Return to editorial search

Back to the news