The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Thomas Pain
Organization: Glass House
Subject: Re: Republican Majority Leader Rejects Operation TIPS
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 06:36:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:36:52 EDT
Paul Wolf wrote:
> From Ritt Goldstein, email@example.com via "Ross"
> Republican Majority Leader Armey Rejects White House Plans for Operation
> TIPS, National ID
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Thursday, July 18, 2002
> WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Richard Armey today insisted that the
> controversial Operation TIPS program and a national ID card not be included
> in the legislation establishing a new cabinet-level Homeland Security
> "Majority Leader Armey has taken a courageous step in insisting that we
> protect our privacy in the fight against terror," said Rachel King, an ACLU
> Legislative Counsel. "There is no place in America for either an internal
> passport or for utility workers and cable technicians to become
> government-sanctioned peeping toms."
> As Chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Majority
> Leader Armey (R-TX) today included language in his markup of the
> legislation currently pending to create the Homeland Security Department
> that would prohibit the implementation of the now notorious Operation TIPS
> program and would forbid the creation of any national ID card, including
> de facto national IDs such as a nationally standardized driver's license.
> According to the White House, Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and
> Prevention System) is scheduled to be introduced as a pilot project in
> August 2002 and would recruit one million volunteers in 10 cities across
> the country who would be encouraged to report suspicious, ostensibly
> terrorism-related activity. The program will target volunteers who because
> of their work as, for example, utility technicians or cable installers are
> "well-positioned to recognize unusual events," the White House says.
> Since Monday, TIPS has attracted fiery critiques from all points on the
> political spectrum. In addition to the ACLU, the Cato Institute and the
> conservative Rutherford Institute have both come out against the proposal.
> Without explanation yesterday, the U.S. Postal Service said it would not
> allow letter carriers to be involved with the program.
> Rep. Armey's prohibition on a national ID cuts directly to one of the key
> proposals in the White House's Homeland Security plan, released earlier
> this week. The plan identifies the standardization of driver's licenses
> nation-wide, a step which the apolitical National Research Council said
> amounts to a "nation-wide identity system" and which opponents say would be
> the creation of an internal passport, as an essential component of homeland
> security. National IDs are strongly opposed by groups as politically
> diverse as the ACLU and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.
> In addition to measures against Operation TIPS and national IDs, the ACLU
> also applauded the Majority Leader's inclusion of language in the bill
> that would establish the first-ever "Privacy Officer" in a cabinet-level
> department. This position would work as a close advisor to the Secretary
> and would be responsible for ensuring that any "technology research and new
> regulations from the Department respect the civil liberties our citizens
> A Summary of the Chairman's Mark can be found on-line at the Select
> Committee's website:
> I can't resist making a comment. If you want to know why the US Postal
> Service wouldn't want to be involved in this, take a look at
> Domestic CIA and FBI Mail Opening
> from the Church Committee Reports of 1975. As postal officials well know,
> from the 1878 Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727,733:
> Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded
> from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and
> weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their
> own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to
> be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures
> extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they
> may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examinedunder
> like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly
> describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are
> subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can place
> in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority
> to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail;
> and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in
> subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of
> the Constitution.
> - Paul
> From: John Wilmerding
> US Citizen Seeks Asylum From US Police
> Ritt Goldstein is living 'underground' in Sweden because he has received
> threats against his life from US police.
> In 1995, this justice of the peace and self-made millionaire launched a
> movement in Connecticut against police brutality and misconduct, which
> included a civilian review board with the power to make changes. The
> police responded with a campaign against him -- his home and office were
> ransacked, his car tampered with. He has been pepper sprayed, MACED and
> shot at. "Civilian review is an idea that will immediately inspire
> violent reaction from the police," said Connecticut State Police
> Association spokesman Dave McCluskey.
> Following six months of this treatment, with his health in decline and
> friends urging him to flee, Ritt sought political asylum in Sweden in
> July 1997. With ample evidence supporting his claims about his
> treatment in the US, he awaited, what he thought, would be an automatic
> offer of permanent asylum in Sweden.
> In a move that stunned Amnesty International and other human rights
> groups, Sweden's Immigration Board did not challenge the facts of
> Ritt's claim but said that there is no need for asylum because the US
> is an "internationally recognized democracy with a just legal system."
> Sweden's Alien Appeals Board upheld this decision which led to an
> order for his immediate deportation to the US. Ritt immediately went
> into hiding in Sweden as his case slowly grinds its way toward the
> European Court of Justice in Strasbourg. He has been described as
> "the man who fled the US in search of freedom."
> While Ritt's case receives little attention in the US, it has set off
> a wide debate in Europe. His supporters suspect that the Swedish
> immigration service simply does not want to embarrass the US by
> granting him asylum.
> You can understand why because there's a lot more at stake than Ritt's
> safety. If the world's most powerful nation can be called to task for
> human rights violations, then the behavior of every nation is able to
> be questioned: Germany's treatment of the Turks, the French of the
> Algerians, the Spanish of the Basques, and so on. Or what if the UN's
> war crimes tribunal went after some NATO pilots and commanders for
> bombing civilians. Until now, the court has only charged Arabs,
> Balkins, Cambodians, and Latinos. What if it started prosecuting
> agents of Washington. President Clinton's apology for US support of
> brutal dictators, such as in Guatemala, brings such possibilities to
> mind, especially since such support continues even now.
> In addition, if Ritt loses his asylum claim, US citizens will be ever
> more unwilling to work against police violence, at a time when Amnesty
> International says it occurs with "impunity" within the US.
> 1. Write the two following persons re Ritt's case (see sample letter
> Mr. Goran Persson, Prime Minister
> Mr. Goran Hakansson, General Director
> 2. Forward a copy of your letter to Mr. Goldstein at
> firstname.lastname@example.org so that he can use it as evidence of his
> support within the US.
> SAMPLE LETTER
> Dear (Prime Minister Persson/General Director Hakansson):
> I am writing you regarding the case of Ritt Goldstein, a US citizen,
> in order to express my concern about Sweden's decision to refuse him
> protection. Of particular concern, is the finding by Amnesty
> International's Swedish section that the handling of Mr. Goldstein's
> case, "goes against Swedish legislation."
> As detailed in Vi magazine (3 August 2000) and other publications, Mr.
> Goldstein led a US movement for police reform which led to a campaign
> of threats against his life by the police. It is because of these
> threats that Mr. Goldstein sought protection in your country. One of
> your own leading bishops, Claes-Gertil Ytterberg, as well as Caritas
> Sweden, and others, have called for Mr. Goldstein's protection in a
> 19 July 1998 debate piece in "Dagens Nyheter." Nonetheless, on 30
> January 1998, Utlanningsnamnden upheld the earlier SIV decision (24
> September 1997) which refused Mr. Goldstein Swedish protection, and
> sought his removal from Sweden.
> I am aware that Utlanningsnamnden rejected his asylum because it found
> that Mr. Goldstein's attackers were, "individual police", that the
> attacks, "were not authorized by police authorities", and that "the
> United States is a recognized democracy with a just legal system".
> I am shocked by this decision because there has been ample
> documentation of various miscarriages of justice within the US.
> Sadly, Amnesty International has noted that within the US "brutality
> following challenges to police authority has been widely documented"
> and human rights violations by US police occurs with "impunity".
> The Utlanningsnamnden decision not only puts Mr. Goldstein at risk,
> but it also makes it harder for others to speak out against human
> rights abuses. For this reason, I am not surprised that this
> decision prompted outcry within Sweden and focused attention about
> Mr. Goldstein's case in the media within the European Union. Nor
> am I am surprised that human rights groups such as Amnesty
> International and France Libertes support his claim for asylum. Is
> not an endangered American worth the same protection as your country
> would afford any other person?
> It truly appears to me that a unilateral review of Mr. Goldstein's
> case is in order. I urge you to pursue this review.
> Your truly,
> (name, city and state)
I hope so, Adolph W. (big brother) Shrub needs to be reeled in by the
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of