REAL ID ACT CANNOT PASS: URGENT

Most people think that the Real ID act is about immigration measures. That is wrong. The Real ID act is an attack on the Bill of Rights. The House version of the bill (unchanged in the Senate) is called HR 418. I did an article on it, here are some parts that you need to know about. When you are done reading, call everyone and anyone in Senate, House, Media, scream your heads off:

Mods, this is my article, so no need for 4 graph rule as I am posting parts of it here with my permission.

HR 418/Real ID Act:

Provisions Affecting Civil Rights

The bill lays out the groundwork for a National ID card/driver’s license program and how it is administered.

The National ID card provision does not follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and instead turns the DMV worker into an INS worker.

On the surface, a centralized national database for past criminal records such as DUIs is not an issue for most Republicans and Democrats. What is of concern is the wording of the provision which asks the state to at “minimum” provide confirmation of documents of citizenship based on an assessment by a DMV employee.

The wording is such that it opens the door for the government to require anything from gun ownership records to health records should the state demand them.

This provision, Congressional aides say, does not in any way address the issue of terrorism because the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were in the United States legally and had legal drivers’ licenses. Further, 9/11 terrorists were given passports from the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul is among those vehemently denouncing the ID card.

“Very few people seem to see this as we do, as a precursor to something very bad, a domestic passport, a national ID card to do the business of life in America, to get a job, to travel,” said Rep. Paul’s press secretary Jeff Deist. “It doesn’t strengthen border control; it doesn’t add new agents or anything like that.”

“I think most Republican members are going to vote for it. I don’t think are there are that many House members .”

Gun Owners of America agree with this concern.

“In considering this bill, the U.S. House will vote on whether to empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver’s license – and under what conditions,” the group said in a statement. “Since you need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, this will give the expanded ability to impose even greater forms of gun control – something which it has long coveted. This will become even more apparent if an anti-gun Democrat like Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008.”

<snip>

Groups across the gamut of social and political persuasions express concern over the Patriot Act II provision which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security even more authority. The definition of what is a terrorist and/or a terrorist organization is very broad and could include protesters, political groups, and anyone the government “labels” as a terrorist.

The law will also apply retroactively to activities that were legal at the time, but later were labeled “terrorist.”

One source gave the following real life example: “Imagine I donate to a grassroots political party started by a group of average Americans. My donation is legal and the group’s activities are legal. Let’s say 10 years from now this group is run by different people and those people do something deemed to be “terrorism.” I can be labeled a terrorist because 10 years prior, I had donated to them, even though it was legal at the time.”

Some have stated that the only real reason for this type of law would be to deter from any political dissent.

The American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly troubled by the implications of the proposed legislation, deeming this act as an annulment of the entire Bill of Rights.

Sources say that some of these ‘immigration’ provisions are what held up the intelligence reform bill which Rep. Sensenbrenner would not bring to a vote late last year. In an attempt to mollify Sensenbrenner, a promise was made that

<snip>

Barrier Fence Provision

One section of the bill allows the Homeland Security Secretary to waive all federal, state, and local law for the construction of “barriers,” and is viewed by some as in direct opposition to the Constitution.

Primarily, the Secretary would have discretion to suspend environmental, eminent domain and labor laws. The provision is worded, however, in such a way as to not limit construction to the external border of the country and actually includes roads as “barriers.”

Such suspension of labor laws could affect child labor, standards of compensation and safety, any and all compensation for the loss of property, adverse environmental affects and any damages resulting from toxins.

One aide described a real world example.

“Imagine an illegal immigrant, a child, working to build roads on your property while spreading dioxin into the atmosphere,” the aide said.

Sources on both sides of the aisle express great concern over this particular provision.

read the rest: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=56

is the ability to hide it in proposed laws. Thank you for posting this. I hope DUers make the needed calls.

To vote on it alone, not attached to the spending "must pass bill" and it seems we were duped. Lou Dobbs is pushing this as immigration reform bill. Email him and educate him on what this bill really is.

is a shill....he adds the controlled anti open border part of the debate. He knows what this will do. The powers that be are very crafty at controlling both sides of the debate.

and BTW ..dr Paul is correct on this issue...this will be your slave papers....and immigrants aren't required to have this ID, they can thave the Matricular and still get hired , only US citizens.(or Imperial Slaves , as they refer to us in the policy papers)

Go figure. And why are they the one's to decide who gets a drivers licenses? Are these the same people who are pushing for ID's at voting places?

:kick:

and prey on immigration fears

while they take away your rights to your property, your freedom to protest and all environmental rights.

All you are left with is a shiny new National Driver's License ID card.

They're using fear. I guess they forgot about: "the only thing to fear is fear itself." I guess it doesn't apply anymore.

and in return you just hand over your rights.

Fair. Right?

No judge could possibly allow the arrest to go through. It's outright unconstitutional.

Article I Section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

the judge would be ok to do it.

Tells us just how much validity the rule of law has. Please call everyone. This is an issue that will decide on if I leave this country or not. That is how seriously I take it. What kind of government would need to build "inland barriers", suspend all laws, and arrest citizens for crimes that were legal at the tme of their doing? Does anyone else see what this is?

nobody on the right cares about the Constiution anymore. Bush has shown that. He's done a lot of illegal things from stealing both elections to Iraq and even the Patriot Act.

Groups across the gamut of social and political persuasions express concern over the Patriot Act II provision which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security even more authority. The definition of what is a terrorist and/or a terrorist organization is very broad and could include protesters, political groups, and anyone the government “labels” as a terrorist.

The law will also apply retroactively to activities that were legal at the time, but later were labeled “terrorist.”

One source gave the following real life example: “Imagine I donate to a grassroots political party started by a group of average Americans. My donation is legal and the group’s activities are legal. Let’s say 10 years from now this group is run by different people and those people do something deemed to be “terrorism.” I can be labeled a terrorist because 10 years prior, I had donated to them, even though it was legal at the time.”

Some have stated that the only real reason for this type of law would be to deter from any political dissent.

The American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly troubled by the implications of the proposed legislation, deeming this act as an annulment of the entire Bill of Rights.


The bill would punish people for legal actions which were outlawed only long after the fact. The courts would be obliged to scrap this law as an unconstitutional ex post facto law--unless the Fristians manage to press the nuke button on the Senate and allow Bush's criminal consiglieri a lifetime judgeship.

Of a large "building" with prisoners in it, working for the government?

Please let everyone you know hear about this -- including all those right-wing inlaws who annoy you over Thanksgiving dinner. Send them the Ron Paul/Gun Owners of America part and tell them to spread it around. Let them earn their keep for once. ;-)

How could everyone say this thing was going to be brought to discussion in conference and not going to be attached to the spending bill and then this crap comes out? Either no one has read it or no one cares. I for one am having a panic attack.

i am trying to find out just who is in conference... people, put the legs here that you did on Gannon, please, I beg you. this bill is a direct attack on the Bill of Rights. after 9/11 they voted for patriot act because they were "frightened." there is no excuse now.

:kick:

:kick:

hahahahah... they don't know, are you kidding me? i am going to take a nap or I will freak out. i cannot understand what happened to my country... i have to make a choice, either quit being a journalist and be an activist or be a journalist and shut my mouth on big issues... i don't see this as a choice, but others do. hmmm, any suggestions?

Also important to send emails to one and all. This also might be something we could pique Olberman's interest with. The more people that know about this the better. On my way to email land. Thanks for alerting one and all. C'mon people, lets move on it!

:kick:

Oh goodness, please tell me it can't.

I assume my Dem senators will not vote for this attack on our freedom, but I will contact my Repub rep for sure.

:scared:

to tweak it, because the Senate made changes to it. the problem is, we don't know who is conference and what the changes are.

Arrrgggg!!!

:kick:

So is there anything we can do now?

That the President not sign it or that the Senate overturn it, to give them some time to actually read it.

This was all done very quickly and per the usual secretive way. Like I said, see how you got the Gannon SS story heard? Now take the majority back out for a spin and get this heard, LOUD.

I have some meetings tomorrow, will keep you posted. The problem is I really should not be this openly active, but I don't care. I am a citizen too, damn it. I need you guys to give this legs... the vote does not matter if we can be charged with a crime retroactively, when we did something at a time it was legal. That means at the discretion of the Homeland Security leader, a decision could be made (bypassing judges) that the ACLU is a radical terrorist group. So, anyone who donated to the ACLU prior to it being declared a T group, would also be a T. As a T, you lose your rights to due process, as things appear now. This is an example of course, but that is just how dangerous this is.

to Levin and Stabenow, and my Rep Joe Schwarz.

EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD TOO!!!!!

On the surface, a centralized national database for past criminal records such as DUIs is not an issue for most Republicans and Democrats. What is of concern is the wording of the provision which asks the state to at “minimum” provide confirmation of documents of citizenship based on an assessment by a DMV employee.

The wording is such that it opens the door for the government to require anything from gun ownership records to health records should the state demand them.


And then this database is put under the Homeland Security Secretary with no privacy safeguards. Combine this with the "security" contols of Rfids and/or biometrics chips in the licenses and ID's and we can all be scrutinized as never before.

which is almost impossible for a politician to vote against.

to the "must pass bill" for the troops ... which is why the Dems are afraid to vote against it. although a better approach might have beene as follows:

Framing it:

1). How do we know this money will go to troops since we have given over and over and they have no resources? Where is the 9 billion?

2). Why do you have to sneak this in, instead of it standing alone? What are you afraid of?

That would have been simple

this needs attention. Got to grow legs and run.

They say a national ID system.

They say a new tool on immigration.

Ha! Don't read the parts where Homeland Security has descretion rights which trumps the courts and your rights.

Just look at the new shiny drivers license and security they say you are getting.

Well, they're working on that end too, aren't they?

aaaah - freedom

:sarcasm:

A T, how much access to a court will you have? Look at the court decision on not keeping prisoners for extended period of time in Gitmo or on US soil. How long have those people been there now without being charged? They don't need the courts, this give the leader of Homeland Security say over judicial process. This is a dangerous bill. I should be reporting on it, not screaming about it. But honestly, I don't know what to do.

Write them a letter and ask them to use some of that 60 million to help on this. They are using that money for BS damn it and not for really important issues.

Ugh. This is so disgusting. So will any of these abortion bombers be on the list as a terrorist such as Eric Rudolph?

:kick:

Why are they sticking this in a defense bill? Why are they being sneaky about this? Who are they wanting to place surveillance on, Potential terrorists or just plan Americans?

:kick:

http://www.lawg.org/misc/publications-manuals.htm
("Latin America Working Group, Action at Home for Just Policies Abroad")

Declassified Army and CIA Manuals Used in Latin America:

An Analysis of Their Content

by Lisa Haugaard, Latin America Working Group

February 18, 1997

On September 20, 1996, the Pentagon released to the public seven training manuals prepared by the U.S. military and used between 1987 and 1991 for intelligence training courses in Latin America and at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA).

>snip<

("Terrorism and the Urban Guerilla," p. 113)

"Measures of Controlling the Population and Resources

1. Surveillance. To control the movement of supplies, equipment, and people, it will be necessary to control and monitor the population's activities. Surveillance measures are used to identify insurgents, identify those who support them, and identify the manner in which aid is provided to the insurgents. Restrictive measures are those that are aimed to isolate the insurgent from the general population, physically and psychologically, denying him his principal source of supply.

1. ID Cards. An effective system of identification is fundamental to the program for controlling the population and resources.

2. Registration. A program of registering families is used to supplement the system of ID cards. This is the system of inventorying all families by house, making a list of all members of the family who live in the house along with the family's resources. One can also note the presence of insurgent tendencies and affiliations among the population.

3. Control by block. The purpose of block-by-block control is to detect the individuals who are supporting or sympathizing with the insurgents and the type of support they are providing.

4. Police patrols. Police patrols can be compared to reconnaissance patrols. Their purpose is to detect sources of insurgent support, sympathizers, and routes used by the insurgent forces for intelligence, logistics, and routine activities and to act to prevent these activities.

Restrictive Measures. Once the collection of information about the insurgents' supply system has been effective, the government forces can efficiently implement restrictive measures.

1. Control of travel and transportation. A program of control of the population and resources must include a system of passes.

2. Curfew. Curfews can be an effective method to restrict movement between specific hours through a specific area or specific routes. The purpose is to permit the authorities to identify violators and take actions based on the premise that anyone who violates the curfew is an insurgent or sympathizes with the insurgents until he can prove the contrary.

3. Checkpoints. It is of little use to establish a program of passes and ID cards unless there is a system of verifying these official papers. Therefore, establishing checkpoints in all travel routes is necessary once the use of passes has started...."

This must be stopped.

Okay, writing now on this... when ready, go we still have time it seems, but not much.

be up tomorrow ... we have some time, write your reps people.

If this passes, I hope there are some activist judges who will find it unconstitutional.

:kick:

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3560508&mesg_id=3560508

Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents me.

And Ron Paul--Libertarian posing as a Republican--featured in the post!

give statement for article... that is a bit sad:(

Start posting and kicking the following thread and the answer to this question is there btw... please? I am exhausted and I need to sleep, but I cannot keep kicking the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3560508

I am sorry:) I am cranky from lack of sleep:)

The war funding bill passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 0! The House version of the bill which included the ID was easily passed.

Representatives of the Senate and House will now meet in conference and decide on a final bill which will probably include the ID section.

That's my understanding of what is happening.

Here's more info:

Senate Passes $81 Billion War Spending Bill
Tuesday April 26, 2005
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday passed an $81.3 billion spending bill to keep U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan running and to provide additional help to last December's tsunami victims.

By a vote of 99-0, the Senate passed the emergency spending bill that also funds some new domestic security measures, including the hiring of additional border agents.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050...


ACLU Urges Conferees to Remove "Real ID" From Funding Measure; Proposal Attacks the Persecuted, Harms Immigrants
April 26, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - As proponents of the Real ID Act stepped up pressure on legislators, the American Civil Liberties Union today urged Congressional conferees to strip the anti-privacy, anti-asylum, anti-property rights bill from an appropriations measure to fund the war in Iraq and tsunami relief.

"Proponents are selling the Real ID Act as a fix to the immigration system, when it actually makes thing worse," said Timothy H. Edgar, ACLU Policy Counsel for National Security. "Sadly, Congress did not take the time to carefully consider and review its provisions - if it had, lawmakers would see that the Real ID Act not only denies the persecuted safe haven here, but it would place undue burdens on legal permanent residents and citizens alike. The conferees must reject the Real ID provisions that have been tacked on to the military operations funding measure."

The House sent the Real ID Act to the Senate as part of a "must pass" appropriations measure for the war in Iraq and tsunami relief. Despite objections from Senators that such sweeping changes should not happen without thorough review, House Republican leaders are pushing to keep Real ID in the final conference report. The ACLU noted that neither chamber has held hearings or held thorough discussions on the measure.

The ACLU has been joined in opposition to the Real ID act by a myriad of groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the National Council of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

The act goes against international law and allows government officials to demand written "corroboration" from those seeking asylum. For instance, a Chinese woman seeking asylum after being forced to have an abortion could be required to obtain proof of her abuse from the doctors who performed the procedure.

Additionally, the Real ID Act would waive all state and federal laws to give the Department of Homeland Security unconditional authority to build barriers along the entire border -- placing private property in the hands of federal agents for a "land grab" for national security purposes.

The act also takes us one step closer to a national ID, and a "show us your papers" society by forcing states to link their databases -- containing every licensed driver’s personal information -- with other states and with Canada and Mexico. The act includes no guidelines as to who will have access to that information.

"The Real ID Act would undermine the changes made to drivers’ licenses last year by the intelligence reform legislation," said Timothy H. Sparapani, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Even now, an independent panel is examining the issue of drivers licenses. Their work would be in vain if Real ID passes. Congress must reject it."