[IMC-US] Fwd: [www-features] Article Proposals

[Ana]

two good examples of articles that might not make the cut for global  
indy features, but are important "national" issues. The Patriot act ii  
might qualify for a feature, but we cant do ongoing coverage of it on  
global the way it deserves it. Stories keep breaking about it. See  
below the two examples for more details.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: jon pike <profpike at yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat Sep 20, 2003  5:04:52  PM America/New_York
> To: www-features at lists.indymedia.org
> Subject: [www-features] Article Proposals
>
> Hi Folks-I have to proposals for features.
>
> 1.) Have we done a big takeout on THE VICTORY ACT
> (Patriot Act II, which the Bush administration denied
> having last year)? Yet, I found some stuff on the
> indymedia site, but it looks like it was on the
> "hidden" postings page, not the features page. If not,
> I'll do one with links-a-plenty.
>
> 2.) There's a federal court case that was heard in st.
> louis in which the Rainbow Gathering is challenging
> National Park permits on grounds that it violates
> freedom of assembly. It could have big ramifications
> for freedoom of assembly issues. Also, anti-Bush
> protesters won a small victory against "Designated
> Protest Zones" i.e., thje portest pens at anti-Bush
> Demonstrations. I could mention this as part of this
> other feature.
>
> Let me know.
>
> --Jon--
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> www-features mailing list
> www-features at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/www-features
>
>


the final sentence of the article:
> "The proposal would also extend the death penalty to a number of other
> criminal activities, including sabotage of a defense installation or a
> nuclear facility."
>
>

ie plowshare actions.

> September 14, 2003
>
> DOMESTIC SECURITY
>
> Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data
> By ERIC LICHTBLAU
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/national/ 
> 14PATR.html?th=&pagewanted=print&
> position=
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - For months, President Bush's advisers have
> assured a
> skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the
> long
> reach of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act because its
> most
> intrusive measures would require a judge's sign-off.
>
> But in a plan announced this week to expand counterterrorism powers,
> President Bush adopted a very different tack. In a three-point
> presidential
> plan that critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Mr. Bush is
> seeking
> broad new authority to allow federal agents - without the approval of a
> judge or even a federal prosecutor - to demand private records and
> compel
> testimony.
>
> Mr. Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes
> like
> terrorist financing, and he wants to make it tougher for defendants in
> such
> cases to be freed on bail before trial. These proposals are also sure
> to
> prompt sharp debate, even among Republicans.
>
> Opponents say that the proposal to allow federal agents to issue
> subpoenas
> without the approval of a judge or grand jury will significantly expand
> the
> law enforcement powers granted by Congress after the attacks of Sept.
> 11,
> 2001. And they say it will also allow the Justice Department - after
> months
> of growing friction with some judges - to limit the role of the
> judiciary
> still further in terrorism cases.
>
> Indeed, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is
> sponsoring
> the measure to broaden the death penalty, said in an interview that he
> was
> troubled by the other elements of Mr. Bush's plan. He said he wanted to
> hold
> hearings on the president's call for strengthening the Justice
> Department's
> subpoena power "because I'm concerned that it may be too sweeping." The
> no-bail proposal concerns him too, the senator said, because "the
> Justice
> Department has gone too far. You have to have a reason to detain."
>
> But administration officials defended Mr. Bush's plan. Even though the
> administration is confident that the United States is winning the war
> on
> terrorism, they said, they have run into legal obstacles that need to
> be
> addressed.
>
> "We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs,"
> said
> Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our
> responsibility
> when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on
> how to
> fix them."
>
> In announcing his plan on Wednesday, Mr. Bush said one way to give
> authorities stronger tools to fight terrorists was to let agents demand
> records through what are known as administrative subpoenas, in order to
> move
> more quickly without waiting for a judge.
>
> The president noted that the government already had the power to use
> such
> subpoenas without a judge's consent to catch "crooked doctors" in
> health
> care fraud cases and other investigations.
>
> The analogy was accurate as far as it went, but what Mr. Bush did not
> mention, legal experts said, was that administrative subpoenas are
> authorized in health care investigations because they often begin as
> civil
> cases, where grand jury subpoenas cannot be issued.
>
> The Justice Department used administrative subpoenas more than 3,900
> times
> in a variety of cases in 2001, the last year for which data was
> available.
> The subpoenas are already authorized in more than 300 kinds of
> investigations, Mr. Corallo said.
>
> "It's just common sense that we should be able to use this tool against
> terrorists too," he said. "It's not a matter of more power. It's the
> fact
> that time is of the essence and we may need to act quickly when a judge
> or a
> grand jury may not be available."
>
> Officials could not cite specific examples in which difficulties in
> obtaining a subpoena had slowed a terrorism investigation.
>
> But Mr. Corallo gave a hypothetical example in which the F.B.I.
> received a
> tip in the middle of the night that an unidentified terrorist had
> traveled
> to Boston. Under Mr. Bush's plan, the F.B.I., rather than waiting for a
> judicial order, could subpoena all the Boston hotels to get registries
> for
> each of their guests, then run those names against a terrorist database
> for
> a match, he said.
>
> Attorney General John Ashcroft and other senior officials, defending
> the
> Patriot Act in recent speeches and interviews, have emphasized that
> judges
> must sign off on the investigative tools that have caused the most
> public
> protest, like searching library records or executing warrants without
> immediately notifying the target.
>
> One section of the Justice Department's new Patriot Act Web site,
> lifeandliberty.gov, for instance, says the law "allows federal agents
> to ask
> a court for an order to obtain business records in national security
> terrorism cases."
>
> The administration sought to expand the use of administrative subpoenas
> in
> the original Patriot Act in 2001, but Democrats protested and succeeded
> in
> killing it.
>
> Civil rights lawyers, defense advocates and some former prosecutors say
> they
> see no need to broaden the Justice Department's powers so markedly.
> Under
> current law, they say, terrorism investigators can typically get a
> subpoena
> in a matter of hours or minutes by going through a judge or a grand
> jury.
>
> "The fundamental issue here," Nicholas M. Gess, a former federal
> prosecutor
> and a senior aide to the former attorney general Janet Reno, said, "is
> that
> at a time of such concern over civil liberties, there's good reason to
> have
> a judge looking over the government's shoulder."
>
> Mr. Bush's proposal, he said, "means that there are no effective checks
> and
> balances. It's very worrisome."
>
> A second proposal by Mr. Bush would strengthen the government's hand in
> keeping defendants charged with terrorism-related crimes in jail
> pending
> trial.
>
> But critics like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts,
> said
> they believed the idea also posed risks of limiting the discretion of
> federal judges and giving the Justice Department too much power.
>
> Mr. Bush's proposal would require judges to presume that defendants in
> terrorism-related offenses should not be allowed out on bail, unless
> the
> defense can persuade the judge otherwise. The proposal defines
> terrorism to
> mean acts like murder, kidnapping or computer attacks intended to
> "influence
> or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to
> retaliate against government conduct."
>
> Such no-bail restrictions, which effectively shift the burden of proof
> from
> prosecutors to the defense in determining whether a defendant should be
> locked up, are already in place for certain narcotics trafficking
> offenses
> and other charges.
>
> "A suspected terrorist could be released, free to leave the country, or
> worse, before the trial," Mr. Bush said. "This disparity in the law
> makes no
> sense. If dangerous drug dealers can be held without bail in this way,
> Congress should allow for the same treatment for accused terrorists."
>
> Justice Department officials were angered this summer when judges in
> Alexandria, Va., freed on bail four men who were charged with
> supporting
> Kashmir terrorists. The judges said they were not persuaded the men
> posed a
> clear danger or a flight risk.
>
> Despite Mr. Bush's concerns, Justice Department officials said they
> knew of
> no specific instances in which a person charged in a terrorism case had
> fled
> after being granted bail. And critics said they were unconvinced the
> current
> laws needed fixing.
>
> The third element of Mr. Bush's plan would expand the list of
> terrorism-related crimes eligible for death.
>
> Suspects like Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of taking part in the 9/11
> conspiracy, already face the prospect of the death penalty for the most
> serious terrorist offenses.
>
> But Mr. Specter, who said he had worked on the issue for months before
> the
> White House asked him to sponsor legislation, said his measure would
> allow
> execution for "gateway" crimes like terrorist financing, even if the
> defendant does not carry out the attack.
>
> "The financiers are really the principal culprits," he said.
>
> The proposal would also extend the death penalty to a number of other
> criminal activities, including sabotage of a defense installation or a
> nuclear facility.
>