Articles
By Natasha H. (age 12).
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes, decide everything" - Joseph Stalin.
On December 12, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the outcome of the election did not matter and effectively appointed George W. Bush President, Americans saw the death of the right to vote in America. When the recount results showed Gore won Florida and the Presidency six out of six ways of counting all the votes, the news media buried the outcome of the count at the end of articles or omitted it entirely from their stories and the public didn't care enough to take their county back. The fact that an impostor who had stolen the White House failed to stop the events of 9/11 didn't matter. If Americans wanted to restore Democracy and true security, they would have to act. They would have to stand up like responsible citizens and do something other than going about their daily routines in the usual manner.
In 2002, when voters in Florida and Texas watched voting computers change their votes from Democrat to Republican before their eyes, no one cared - not even the DNC. The DNC had had advance warning about the problem. Yet, did the DNC demand a voter-verifiable paper trail for the 2002 election? Did it demand that all voting computers without one be shutdown? If the answer to these question had not been "no," Americans might have seen a different outcome in terms of who controlled Congress and in the state races, such as in Georgia (where the computers lost votes that had already been counted for the Democratic governor and changed the outcome of the governor's race overnight) and Texas (where the Republican gained control of both houses for the first time since Reconstruction). In some races, the computers gave the Republicans a vote count of 18,181 - which translates to A-HA-HA. Yet the DNC and the voters weren't smart enough to figure out that the joke was on them.
Fortune Magazine recently ranked paperless voting machines as the worst technology of the year. Studies by Johns Hopkins University and UCLA have shown massive flaws in the electronic voting systems with the potential to change the results of elections. Recently, Walden O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold, which was on the verge of putting it's voting systems into Ohio, wrote a letter stating that he was committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2004. Mr. O'Dell is very active in the Bush re-election campaign. Presidential candidate John Edwards recently called on Bush to return Diebold's more than $100,000 in contributions. Resident Bush might follow through with this - the day after he finds weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Chuck Hagel knows the value of computerized voting. He is the former CEO of ES&S (Election Systems and Software), a voting software company that saw him through two upset victories in Nebraska in 1996 and 2002, and is currently a major shareholder in McCarthy & Company, ES&S's parent company. In 1996, he became the first Republican to win a Senate victory in Nebraska in 24 years. He might have won legitimately but, given the obvious bias of ES&S and the lack of a voter-verifiable paper trail to prove who won, there is a great deal of question regarding whether he actually won or should instead turn the office over to the real winners of the two races.
One of many problems with computerized voting is that, in America, the programs are not in the public domain ready to be torn apart and inspected by any amateur or expert computer programmer to check for accuracy or rigging. They remain the property of the software corporations (mostly Republican) who create them and are licensed to the registrars of voters. Because there is no paper trail on most of these machines, no voter can prove how they actually voted. Because of the secrecy of the source code, the registrars of voters cannot credibly assure the public of the accuracy of the mechanism. This is in contrast to Australia, where the source code for the voting software can be viewed over the Internet. Anyone can check out the accuracy. Why do we deserve less?
Where are the riots about the loss of the right to elect leaders? Why aren't millions marching in the street demanding to be re-enfranchised? Americans grow up letting others think for them, first their teachers and their peers, and then the government and the news media. In grade school, natural curiosity and a quest for truth are considered grounds for drugging kids into normality and subservience. Now when common sense tells us that there is something funny going on with the voting, Americans would rather sit and accept what the government and the media tells them rather than check out the truth for themselves. With the voting computers, Americans have no way to check out the truth. They cannot watch the votes being counted or check into the integrity of the program doing the counting. The votes are counted in secret by counters who may have been programmed to count each Republican vote three times while only counting one out of every three Democratic votes. The counters can dispose of the evidence of the actual count at the same time. If a candidate cannot win an election, what better way to win than by using an easily riggable, secret system that can guarantee the desired victory while eliminating any evidence that the candidate really lost. Americans might have a more accurate result if they let a game of cards decide an election.
Last April [2003], at the Orange County Democratic Party Central Committee meeting, this writer's father performed a demonstration of a computer program he wrote. Instead of using hundreds of thousands of lines of code in which most voting corporations can hide the rigging, my dad's program had less than 300 lines of code. It had security. Each voter received a password so only eligible people could vote. The voters were allowed to verify their votes on the computer before they were counted. In every case the votes were verified by the voters as being recorded accurately. The first question asked whether the voter was for or against the legalization of child slave labor in California. The second question involved a choice between Osama Bin Laden and Bill Lockyer for governor. When the computer counted the votes, Osama Bin Laden was the Orange County Democratic Party's unanimous choice for governor. The group also unanimously supported the legalization of child slave labor in California. There was no paper trail and so no one could make a case that they had voted otherwise. Strangely enough, shortly after voting unanimously against Bill Lockyer, members of the OC Democratic Central Committee threw Bill Lockyer a wedding reception. Now before anyone just jumps to the conclusion that the Orange County Democrats are a bunch of terrorist-sympathizers or child haters, this writer has a confession. I watched the members cast their votes. In reality, Lockyer won by a large margin and child slave labor went down by a sizable margin as well. However, if this had been a real election with no onlookers, Osama would be in Sacramento and I would be slaving away. My dad selected 100% for the winning results as he knew some people might play games and he wanted to make the point. However, he could have chosen 51% for Osama's victory, or any other percentage he wanted.
My family and I want Dennis Kucinich to be the next President of the United States. So if electronic voting cannot be stopped by then and rigged computers rule the primaries and the general election, I hope my dad is asked to write the program for these voting computers. Dennis normally wins elections in his district (which is half made up of Republicans) with 74% of the vote, so this would be a good margin to program for his victory in both the primaries and the general election. Unfortunately, most of the voting software is owned by Republican-controlled corporations, my dad is too honest to support the theft of democracy - even to put the best candidate (Dennis) into office - and Dennis, himself, is the essence of honesty.
Besides, all Dennis needs to win the nomination is honesty in the media and an honest counting of the votes. That is why, of all the candidates, Dennis has taken the lead in fighting an attempt by Diebold to suppress information about electronic voting and the lead in co-sponsoring and calling for passage of Rush Holt's "Voter Confidence and Increased Accountability Act of 2003," H.R. 2239. "...this bill would:
� Require all voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts
� Ban the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devises in voting systems
� Require that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006
� Require all voting systems to meet these requirements in time for the general election in November 2004
� Require that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006
� Require mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5% of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5% of overseas jurisdictions." [1]
Three bills have been introduced in the Senate. These were proposed by Bob Graham, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. Bob Graham's is the only one that is identical to Rush Holt's bill. If Graham's and Holt's bills pass their respective houses, there will be no need for a conference committee to slow down the implementation. It is important for every member of Congress who wants election results to be certain rather than in doubt to back Holt's and Graham's bills. It will help give all the candidates a fair chance. Because of the wide ownership of voting software companies by Republicans, it is also in the interest of Republicans to push these bills through so they will be able to prove they really did get elected.
In the meantime, in Orange County, California, the Democratic Party is encouraging every eligible voter to register for permanent absentee status. This is also good advice for anyone living in an area where there is computerized voting with no paper trail. As a last resort, absentee ballots will serve as a voter verifiable paper trail.
It's time for every true patriot in America to stand up and demand restoration of the right to vote and to have our votes accurately counted before the 2004 election. Bush's first term has brought national disasters of an unprecedented scale, wars, international ridicule and contempt for the United States, an overthrow of our Bill of Rights, recession, joblessness, poverty for a large sector of American society, mad cow disease and the extinguishment of the right of Americans to have their votes determine their future. Imagine what horrors another four years of Bush would bring.
Now is the time to act. Demand the immediate passage of Rush Holt's and Bob Graham's bills. Call everyone you know and ask them to demand passage of these bills. Refuse to support any member of Congress who will not get behind these two bills. If we sit back now, we may never get another chance at democracy.
1. http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/isuespdfs/ElectronicVoting.pdf
Which Government Will Be Next?
By Natasha, age 12
On September 11, 2001, America had an awful catastrophe. We knew immediately just who was to blame. Our President claimed to have no idea it was going to happen just the day before. (Interestingly, before the attacks, then-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was warned not to fly, employees of certain businesses in the World Trade Center were told not to report to work on 9-11, an investment firm with CIA connections sold "put" options on American and United Airlines, and, through foresightedness, records were moved out of the section of the Pentagon that was later hit on 9-11.) The authority to scramble the jets had been vested solely with Donald Rumsfeld less than four months prior to 9-11 but warnings of impending terrorist attacks from leaders of 12 countries and planes going off course for long periods of time was apparently not sufficient reason for Rumsfeld to act to stop the impending tragedy. After all, he and George W. Bush had no idea what was about to happen until after it happened
Yet immediately after the tragedy, it was known that the villain was Osama Bin Laden (whom we still haven't caught). Not only did we know the identity of the man, whose existence had been of minimal interest in terms of national security to Bush the day before, but where he was from, his whole background and that suddenly he was dangerous. We also knew the identities of 19 of the hijackers, something we supposedly did not know when they boarded the plane earlier that morning. (Let's forget about the fact that at least seven of the "hijackers" whom our government claimed perished on those planes have been photographed alive since 9-11.) Our government also knew that Osama was in Afghanistan. Apparently he had not been a stranger to the CIA. On July 11, 2001, CIA agent Larry Mitchell visited bin Laden in an American hospital in France. Though the Bush administration had allowed bin Laden to leave the American hospital and return to Afghanistan, it did not keep track of a terrorist attack numerous individuals had told the Bush administration bin Laden was planning.
Suddenly, on 9-11, it became a priority to actually stop bin Laden. To the Bush administration, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole suddenly had become more than just a handshake. It was a prelude to a major event in this country. Bin Laden had become enemy number 1. So of course, right after the 9-11 attacks, Bush had to arrange to have the bin Laden family flown out of the country by private plane. What else would any leader do with potential witnesses and perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in American history? Of course, ordinary Americans (whose names were not bin Laden) were grounded to make the airways safer.
Osama bin Laden had a previous enemy who did try to stop him. On August 20th, 1998, President Bill Clinton successfully launched an attack on two locations where Osama was suspected of hiding out. After this attack, bin Laden's kidney's were sufficiently damaged that he would require regular dialysis on an on-going basis. Of course, when Clinton went after Osama for bombing two embassies (a ridiculous thing to do), it was called "Wagging the Dog." After President Bill Clinton's focus on bin Laden turned out to be correct, what was the reaction? Rather than apologizing for their criticisms of Clinton's attempts to stop bin Laden, the Republicans turned reality upside down and tried to place part of the blame for 9-11 on President Clinton, the only President who had tried to stop bin Laden prior to 9-11-01.
After the Bush administration came into office, it funneled $40 million to the Taliban. Bin Laden was supposed to be working with the Taliban. Was this a thank you for the Cole? Nah, let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Just because forty million would have helped the Taliban fund 9-11-01 doesn't make Bush Osama's best friend. Neither do Bush's past business connections with the Bin Laden family. Bush and the Bin Laden family had been in the oil business together before. Fortunately for Bush, due to what a lot of people are calling insider trading, Bush came out of that venture financially richer than his fellow investors. When Bush Sr. was in Washington, Sr. had seen to it that Osama had been trained by the CIA. His trainers apparently did their job well.
On 9-11, what was Bush's reaction to the "terrorist attack?" Where was he? He claimed to have seen the first plane crash - an interesting trick, since it was not televised. Still, after he knew about the first plane crash, he went into a school and read to some children. Concern about people dying in a building that had just been hit by a plane couldn't hold up to a photo-op. Upon learning of the second plane crash, he nodded and continued reading "My Pet Goat." Later he explained that he didn't want to frighten the children. After he finished reading to the children, George W. fled on Air Force One. What else could be expected from someone with Bush's service record?
Having experienced 9-11, it was necessary to carpet bomb Afghanistan (as, in July, 2001, our government had told the Taliban it would do if they did not include the Northern Alliance in their government). Of course, this had nothing to do with the fact that oil executives had indicated they would feel safer about putting an oil pipeline through Afghanistan if the Northern Alliance was part of the Afghanistan government. In 1998, Unocal had pulled out of the pipeline deal after the cruise missile attacks aimed at suspected Taliban camps. However, clearly, in the fall of 2001, we only went in there to get Osama. And, with the power of our military, we were successful, right? So where is Osama? He is supposedly in Afghanistan, on dialysis, hiding very successfully from the American soldiers. With all the doctors and medical machinery and video equipment going in and out of his cave, he must be a genius to have avoided detection. Certainly, Osama is not in a comfy room somewhere safe watching the whole show on TV.
Once America took over Afghanistan, Osama didn't really matter any more. Next we had to go after Saddam Hussein (Osama's sworn enemy) and Iraq. Our reasoning? Not only does Saddam Hussein, Iraq's elected leader, have connections with Osama Bin Laden (lots of mutual hatred), but also "weapons of mass destruction." Of course, it later turned out that these were weapons of mass distraction. But, why admit our country made a mistake, or that Operation Iraqi Liberation is an acronym for OIL? According to insiders in the George W's administration, he was planning to go after Iraq before he even stepped into the White House, so the official reason didn't really matter.
Congress wanted Bush to go to the United Nations and to deal with Iraq through the UN. The American people wanted the UN's support if there were to be a war. After all who would want to go in all alone or with allies who had barely made it out of the stone age? Members of Congress were misled into thinking that, if they voted for the Iraq War Powers Resolution, Bush would still wait for the UN's approval. When 3 countries (France, China, and Russia) said they would veto his resolution, Bush started insulting the countries. Soon people changed "french-fries" (which were created in Belgium and only inherited their name from being frenched and then fried) to "freedom-fries." Other countries wanted time for the inspections to work. However Bush became impatient and couldn't wait. He withdrew his resolution and went in alone without UN approval. Let's compare these countries
Name Location Reasons Oil
Afghanistan Middle East Links to Osama and Al Qaeda 9-11 Planned Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines From Caspian Basin Through Afghanistan.
Iraq Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction, 9-11, & Iraqi Liberation 2nd Largest Proven Oil Reserves
As you can see there are many similarities. The most interesting is the oil. From a war with a country through which a desired pipeline into oil heaven could be run to a war with a country with the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, Bush has no qualms about sending Americans to die. So where do you think America will go next?
Many think it will be Syria. After all, that has been discussed many times. And what does Syria have? Oil. Surprise! Surprise!
Another possibility is Iran. Looking at maps of oil in the Middle Eastern Oil Corridor, it appears that Iran has the largest part of this oil corridor for any country. It also appears that Iran has the most oil or gas fields and the most refineries. Another aspect is the fact that Iran is located between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our government attacked Afghanistan and Iraq openly. But in Haiti, even after evidence surfaced that the rebels were funded by our government and that the President (Aristide) was kidnapped by our government, Bush did not take credit. Perhaps it was because our government could not make a case for weapons of mass destruction or connections to Osama. Perhaps our government is not willing to admit that this is all part of the plan of the Project for a New American Century, a U.S. Militarily-run world.
Venezuela also has oil, but Hugo Chavez, the popular leader, has been able to fend off several coup attempts orchestrated by the U.S. Government. Contrary to the interests of Bush's oil company friends, President Chavez has nationalized the oil industry and given back to the people of Venezuela the property and rights that big business had stolen from them. Because Bush cannot tie Chavez to 9-11-01, the coup attempts are back-door but they continue to take place. It would do John Kerry good to get on board with the majority of people in his own party and support this South American hero of democracy against any further attempted coups against democracy by Bush and his oil friends. To many Americans, Venezuela has what the United States lost in 2000 - a leader chosen by the people.
So which country will be next? In the Middle East, Syria and Iran both have oil. Bush is already trying to link these countries to terrorism and certain Democrats have even bought into Bush's plan to go after them. A great many people believe Venezuela is next. It has more oil reserves than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. The conquest of Venezuela would make Bush's friends (but not Venezuelans) happy. Bush has tried to vilify Chavez and has already been linked to multiple coup attempts and to a phony referendum (mostly signed by Bush's pawns). Chavez's strength is the overwhelming support the Venezuelan people feel for him. Whichever country is next, its people need only to look at Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) to see how much stability a U.S. invasion is likely to produce.
Of course, perhaps the rest of the world will be spared, and America will have a regime change on January 20, 2005.
(Previously printed in Debateusa.com; Copyright � 2004 by Natasha H. All rights reserved.)
IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU
by Natasha H. (age 12)
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson.
No charges are filed and bail is set at $825,000.
Imagine you are a pacifist, an environmentalist, an organizer of peace rallies. Imagine that, as you drive towards home from a peace rally, you notice that you are followed by five suspicious looking cars. You pull into your local police station. You are told that the people following you are federal agents and that the police cannot help you. Suppose you then go home and people who care about you try to ask the federal agents why they are following you.
Suppose they react by taking you into custody, even though you know you have violated no law, and they order everyone who lives in your house outside while they wait until the next night to obtain a search warrant Suppose the items they eventually do grab are school papers, computers and so forth but no evidence of any wrongdoing on your part.
Even though no charges are ever filed, bail is set at $825,000. Suppose you are suspected of an act which is totally in violation of all your principles and which is harmful to the environment. Suppose you can conclusively prove where you were at the time the act occurred. Suppose that a videotape proves they got the wrong person. Suppose that after approximately four days in custody, they release you because they have no evidence to link you to the incident.
Josh Connole does not have to imagine. The above scenario actually happened to him. Peace protesters across the U.S. are now asking "Could this happen to me?"
Given the complete lack of charges, was $825,000 excessive bail? Both the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution have provisions against excessive bail. Under the California Constitution, the charges are a primary factor to be taken into account when setting bail. Josh's lack of priors and his strong ties to the community, also factors under the California Constitution, didn't help him. The two constitutions didn't seem particularly relevant to those handling this matter.
Is the federal government out of control? Given that there was no evidence to link Josh to the incident of which he was accused, what was the real reason he was taken into custody? Did his work in organizing peace rallies play any part?
Comparatively, what happened to Josh is not a surprise. To so many Americans, the world seems very different than it did prior to December 12, 2000. Prior to that time, most people had faith in the court system. Vincent Bugliosi's book, "The Betrayal of America," summed up the sense of so many disillusioned Americans who suddenly felt they had been transported to some post-coup third world country.
After George W. Bush took over, America started changing. Suddenly tax cuts for the super-rich became priority and protesters were crowded into First Amendment zones. Two women, one a grandmother, were arrested for holding anti-Bush placards at a ticketed rally where signs were allowed, they had tickets and those with pro-Bush signs were left alone. A Los Angeles woman received a visit from the Secret Service for a message she posted to an Internet group expressing her feelings about Bush. A student in Texas also received a visit from the Secret Service because of a "Texecutioner" poster she had in her room.
After 9/11, the world really went crazy. More fear occurred when the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Patrick Leahy, then Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and others received envelopes containing anthrax, which it was later learned was manufactured at a U.S. military installation in Texas.
Despite a strong opposition led by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich in the House of Representatives, Congress passed a bill known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" (USA PATRIOT) Act. Though Kucinich got 65 of his fellow Congressmen and Congresswomen to vote against the bill, only one Senator, Russ Feingold, opposed it, to the dismay of shocked constituents. Under USA PATRIOT, the government was allowed to spy on its own citizens, to sneak into their homes and peak into their private papers and then arrange everything back so those whose homes were searched had no idea they were being watched, and to detain individuals without charges and without notification of relatives or access to counsel. The act contains hundreds of pages of restrictions on civil liberties and provisions for intrusion into the private lives of American citizens and others living in this country.
And it was not just Congress that had gone crazy. In Vermont, The Rutland Herald, on Sept 14, 2001, carried a report that their then-Governor Howard Dean had stated that the attacks and their aftermath would require a re-evaluation of the importance of our civil liberties.[1] The news media perpetuated the problem with a barrage of news reports scaring the American people into thinking the next terrorist attack was just around the corner. Michael Moore's Academy Award winning documentary, "Bowling For Columbine," exposed the kind of frenzy the American news media has created among the people living in the United States.
The rounding up of Arab-Americans after 9/11 resembled the rounding up of Communists after the German Reichstag fire in 1933. The Reichstag fire was used as an excuse to suspend civil liberties in the same way 9/11 was used as an excuse for USA PATRIOT. As in Germany, this rounding up did not stop as the country moved past the event.
Many Americans felt safe, mistakenly believing their government would only go after foreigners. But then in April, 2002, Jose Padilla, an American citizen from Brooklyn, New York, was taken into custody and then transferred to detention. The government sidestepped the issues of habeas corpus and right to counsel by initially designating him as a material witness and later re-designating him as an enemy combatant, thereby getting around the small number of procedural and Constitutional requirements afforded a material witness. Without a trial, it could not be proven one way or another whether that designation in any way fit him. For a long time he was held incommunicado and not even permitted access to his family or to counsel but a district court eventually ruled that he must be granted the access to his lawyer. Currently, he sits uncharged in a Navy brig in North Carolina.
Jose Padilla is not the only U.S. citizen to be deprived of his rights, without charges, under this enemy combatant designation. All that is required for this designation is an affidavit, which is not subject to any type of examination or challenge. Then all the Constitutional protections (such as speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses, etc.) no longer apply and the government can then theoretically hold these individuals forever or, if it chooses, try them before military tribunals and execute these U.S. citizens without any Constitutional protections.
The protection of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was considered so fundamental by the founders of this country that it was written right into Article I of the U.S. Constitution, even though other fundamental rights had to wait until a Bill of Rights could be drafted and approved. What would be the founding father's reaction to the loss of this right?
In October of 2002, a man was arrested for holding a "No war for oil" sign outside a building where Bush was speaking. Later that year, a man was arrested under USA PATRIOT for taking pictures in his own hometown of Denver around a hotel where Dick Cheney was staying.
In 2002, Congress also passed the Homeland Security Act, which further jeopardized the rights of U.S. citizens to engage in lawful public dissent, free association and free speech as well as rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The department would have considerable authority for data collection and analysis. A rider to the bill limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for vaccinations contaminated by mercury that were given to children. Dennis Kucinich once again led the opposition. This time, he was joined by 120 other members of the House of Representatives, including Dick Gephardt. Nine members of the Senate, Daniel Akaka, Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold, Ernest Hollings, Daniel Inouye, Jim Jeffords, Edward Kennedy, Carl Levin and Paul Sarbanes opposed the bill. However, the majority of Senate Democrats joined the Republicans in supporting the bill when it passed the Senate on November 19, 2002.
The Total Information Awareness Project, a part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Information Awareness Office, was to be headed by Iran-Contra figure Admiral John Poindexter. A database was to be developed which would allow the U.S. Government to track the activities of American citizens, even down to keeping a national database of credit card purchases made by people living in this country, which would even have included the brand of toothpaste people purchased. Although Poindexter has resigned, only a lack of funding and technology are standing in the way of the full realization of this Orwellian database.
In March, 2003, attorney Stephen Downs was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the words "Give peace a chance" and "Peace on Earth" in Guilderland, New York in the Crossgates Mall where he had purchased the shirt. In April of 2003, hundreds of women, men and children protesting for peace and dockworker bystanders were fired on with rubber bullets and tear gas in Oakland, CA.
Watch lists and "no fly" lists are currently being used at airports to limit the travel of human rights activists.
Is it any wonder that the string of federal abuses finally led to the doorstep of peace activist Josh Connole? The real surprise is all the peace protestors and humanitarians who have not yet undergone the same type of treatment Josh received.
However, there is a bright light that is emerging in this darkness.
The Commerce Bill, which passed the House of Representative this summer by a veto-proof majority, included Dennis Kucinich's amendment repealing the "sneak and peek" provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
On September 24, 2003, Dennis Kucinich introduced the first comprehensive bill to repeal undesirable sections of USA PATRIOT. The Kucinich bill (HR3171), backed by 20 members of Congress, is called the "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act."
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
[1] http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
(Previously printed in Debateusa.com; Copyright � 2003 by Natasha H. All rights reserved.)
[Bio: Natasha is the co-founder of the popular performing group The Superstars of the 21st Century�. She is the author two poetry books and of the comic series, "The Continuing Adventure of Cowardly Tom and Bully George." She is a model, dancer, choreographer and actress who has appeared in over a dozen TV shows and movies and is currently a student with John Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth.]