d) Please be sure to show the contents of the links which I will provide below, drawn from the ACLU’s and other websites, proving that it is not terrorists who are being targeted in the war on terror, but vocal citizens and groups subjected to racial/religious profiling under post-911 legislation. To bring this fact to light is terribly important for convincing these people that “Something’s fishy here” with this current bill.

e) Please understand how terribly important it is not only to study the links below, but to bring in print-outs for the public officials to see. You might even use a highlighter pen to underscore certain points being made in the various articles linked below, with legal analyses of the bill, etc. which will underscore your concerns. (You can choose your favorite articles below, or just print out a page or two of them to illustrate your point).

f) Please ask these officials to release public statements about the bill, to urge the Senate to vote “no” and (Very important!) to filibuster the bill.

SUGGESTED MATERIAL TO BRING WITH YOU TO THE MEETING OR TO EMAIL TO YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS:

Center for Constitutional Rights voices just a couple of concerns about the bill. They ask the question “what defines radical ideologies” and other matters indicating that they are worried about the broadly undefined terms in the bill, which will lead to inappropriate oppression of free speech. Michael Ratner said on KPFA Radio that the bill is “so broad” and used words to the effect that it can and will be misconstrued to suit any one particular agenda.

ACLU’s statement about the bill. They voice the concern that the Act targets thought and not action, will “more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief”, will increase racial profiling, that “we cannot in good conscience support this or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one’s personal beliefs“.

This is Michael Collins’s excellent rebuttal to the Department of Homeland Security’s own rebuttals to concerns which have been voiced about the bill. Particularly the statement they have made that the bill does not clamp down on civil liberties is hereby unequivocally proven to be false. Superb!

 1  |  2  |  3