{"article":{"id":26315,"heading":"Destruction of our rights: Riva Enteen, National Lawyers Guild (interview MP3)","author":"Lady Liberty","created":"2003-01-17 05:39:55","modified":"2003-01-18 05:28:17","last_modified":"Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:28:17","article":"<div>\r\n  \r\n  <ul>\r\n    <li>Click\r\n      here to download mp3<\/li>\r\n    <li>Click\r\n      here for streaming version<\/li>\r\n  <\/ul>\r\n  <p>\r\n  Riva Enteen is the program director for the San Francisco chapter of the National\r\n  Lawyers Guild.&nbsp; She spoke with KPFA's Guns\r\n  and Butter radio team for a show that aired today, January 15, 2003.&nbsp;\r\n  Topics covered include the rise of police state powers, and the fact that\r\n  restrictions serve interests other than so-called security, that in fact were\r\n  the government interested in long-term security radically different measures would need to be taken.&nbsp; She discusses how\r\n  elements of the USA Patriot Act and 30\r\n  executive orders (as of August, 2002) directly violate the Constitution to\r\n  such an extent that they are grounds for impeachment.&nbsp; She speaks about\r\n  the local communities passing resolutions to protest and limit the USA\r\n  Patriot Act's power, but cautions that with the executive orders and the passage\r\n  of the Homeland Security Act, the threats we face are coming from multiple\r\n  fronts.\r\n<\/p><\/div>\r\n<p>Some media commentators have attempted to spin the issue about legislators\r\nnot reading the so-called USA Patriot Act before passing it.&nbsp; Riva Enteen\r\nresearched what happened, and notes that we were not just dealing with lazy\r\nlegislators, but an actual and explicit political decision to ram the legislation\r\nthrough without review.&nbsp; She notes:<\/p>\r\n\r\n  <p><i>\"There is a requirement that legislation be available to read\r\n  before voting ... But that requirement can be suspended by the rules committee,\r\n  and the rules committee voted to suspend that requirement.&nbsp; And that\r\n  rules committee decision had to be voted on by the Congress.&nbsp; What was\r\n  interesting is that it was a closed vote in the House;&nbsp; it was eight\r\n  votes apart.&nbsp; So, almost half the House said, \"Excuse me, but can we\r\n  just get a chance to read it before we vote on it?\"&nbsp; It was close,\r\n  but we lost by eight votes.&nbsp; And when it came to an up or down vote (the\r\n  final vote for the bill), it was a landslide because everybody is lockstep\r\n  with this government because it's all in the name of fighting terrorism.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p>Listen to the program.&nbsp; Burn CDs of the MP3 and share it with friends.&nbsp;\r\nThe program runs for just under 59 minutes.&nbsp; It's a large mp3:&nbsp; about\r\n24 megs.&nbsp; But it's well worth the download time.&nbsp; This is one of the\r\nmost fact filled interviews I've heard on the subject to date.<\/p>\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Guns & Butter Radio Interview: Riva Enteen, program director for the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild; mp3, ~59 minutes ","numcomment":5,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/01\/26315.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":26322,"heading":"Card Carying member -- you bet","article":"Don't miss this either: \r\n\r\n&quot;ACLU report: U.S. heading toward Big Brother society&quot; \r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/sf.indymedia.org\/news\/2003\/01\/1561073.php\r\n ","author":"Lady Liberty","parent_id":26315,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-01-17 06:53:34","modified":"2003-01-17 06:53:34","fileurl":""},{"id":26340,"heading":"ACLU Question","article":"If the ACLU is so hot to save the Bill of rights, how come they always forget the Second Amendment?","author":"BigSteve","parent_id":26315,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-01-17 15:17:36","modified":"2003-01-17 15:17:36","fileurl":""},{"id":26354,"heading":"to BigSteve","article":"It's a mater of money.  They don't have resources coming out of their ears, and they don't have to spend funds on protecting the 2nd Amendment because there are plenty of funds and strong groups (NRA, chief among them) out there doing it.\r\n","author":"Lady Liberty","parent_id":26315,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-01-17 18:20:53","modified":"2003-01-17 18:20:53","fileurl":""},{"id":26356,"heading":"Another point.","article":"BigSteve,\r\n\r\nAnother point.  Your question is structured in a way that leads to goofy logic.  The real question is whether or not they work to stymie the efforts of those that protect the second amendment, to which the answer is a resounding NO.  Given that, the fact that it's not a priority for them is totally irrelevant when judging the balance of their work.  The litmus test is whether or not they work to protect civil liberties without qualification, and this they do (for example, protecting the first amendment rights of groups like the KKK, groups that many people find repulsive;  one can't say some groups have the first amendment right while others don't)\r\n\r\nIn any event, let's stick to the subject here and not introduce side comments.  If you have comments, please keep them on the subject of our rights.  This is not a republican, democrat or any other partisan issue.  More republicans (William Safire, Dick Army, etc.) than democrats are speaking out about the rampant trashing of the Bill of Rights anyway.","author":"Lady Liberty","parent_id":26315,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-01-17 18:38:49","modified":"2003-01-17 18:38:49","fileurl":""},{"id":26527,"heading":"ACLU Spooked by Domestic Spying","article":"ACLU Spooked by Domestic Spying  \r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.wired.com\/news\/politics\/0%2C1283%2C57226%2C00.html","author":"pointer","parent_id":26315,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2003-01-18 05:28:18","modified":"2003-01-18 05:28:18","fileurl":""}]}