Fruit Cups Demo Speech

http://www.historysanjose.org/cannerylife/through-the-years/1917-1966/mechanization/fruit-cocktail.html

http://www.todaysnest.com/todays-nest/2011/06/ay-caray-chili-lime-fruit-cup.html

http://itsmeltingoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/mexican-mixed-fruit-cup-topped-with-chili-sauce-out-of-this-world-good/

http://mexicanfoodie.com/chili-powder-covered-fruit-a-favorite-snack/

Labels: Speech

Patriot Act Article 3

USA PATRIOT Act

Amy Sohm

PS 405 Threats of Terrorism

Assignment 11.2

Part I: What does the USA PATRIOT Act stand for? Discuss how effective the USA PATRIOT Act is.

The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym meaning: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Interpret and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 1) (Gus Martin, (2010), Understanding Terrorism, Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, 3^rd Edition, page 497). That was very creative Bush. The name is long but it says exactly what it is intended to accomplish as a law and put into motion new legislation needed to seek out, apprehend and prosecute terrorists and their sympathizers, legally.

Constitutional law can be a very sticky process. Skilled attorneys knowledgeable in Constitutional law are carefully and specifically trained to see to it our Constitutional rights are protected, yet if challenged by a twisted event like international or domestic terrorism, can and will stand up in a court of law and criminals brought to justice. Right down to local law enforcement, anyone defending and protecting in the US and abroad required some specific guidelines to operate under. Especially now that terrorism respects no borders it’s more important than ever that US laws coordinate with international laws and investigations procedures. We have to work together nation on nation if we hope to gain ground against terrorism.

As normal everyday citizens we take for granted some of the normal day-to-day activities that technology touches and makes our lives easier. What we don’t realize is just how justifiable surveillance has become out of necessity to keep us safe. Bank accounts, identity sources, telephone conversation taps, intercepting computer communication by reading your email or testing your cookies for browser locations and websites has rewritten our nation’s code of ethics. Personally, I don’t have anything to hide, but move this kind of surveillance overseas, and the snooping gets scary.

My friends who spent a decade in the Middle East as missionaries had to be extremely cautious about content and wording in their monthly emailed newsletters. Any
American in the neighborhood was suspect.

Just Who Knows What About Whom?

Have you ever “googled” your name? First and last name search results of my name brings up my name, current address, city, state, age and link you can click on to purchase a package that will reveal even more details about you. I have a couple of people from my past I don’t want to find me. One is an abusive ex-husband. If he really wanted to, all he would have to do is “google” my name and he’d know just where to find me.

Just who provides the general public with this information? Computer search engines like Google or Yahoo are unimaginably huge data-bases forever collecting information that moves across the internet. While submitting a term a paper for a college class, you can plug it into a website called “Turn it in” and it will tell you what percent of your paper is plagiarized 2) (http://turnitin.com/static/index.html). You may not realize you’re plagiarizing but somewhere at some time, the vast information database of the internet has stored someone else’s published article that uses the same verbiage you use in your paper. All of a sudden, you’re a plagiarizer. The internet is just plain an incredible amount of information in one place at one time. A lot of it is personal.

With that kind of information stored inside that acrylic box pulling in cookies and temporary internet files just to process an email sent or received are traceable by trained professionals and sophisticated hackers. That’s how computer viruses are transmitted as well.

So if the government of any country has legal grounds to suspect and track known terrorists, a terrorist group or cell and also has the technical expertise to do so, cyber space is a wealth of information.

Central Intelligence Agency

The Central Intelligence Agency or CIA is as mysterious as it is effective. They collect and coordinate information outside of the US for use in criminal justice internationally but especially for the US. After the inception of the New Homeland Security of the US the CIA was the only federal law enforcement agency that was granted continued solidarity. All others combined efforts collectively between departments for efficiency and effectiveness. The CIA’s independence had to remain intact in order to maintain the sensitivity to an organizational structure to function without interference from outside sources 3) (Prepared by the US Government, (March 2009) A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis).

The FBI also maintained its status as part of the Department of Justice. All others, the Coast Guard, Customs, Federal Emergency Management Agency and some functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service all became subsidiaries of the New Homeland Security. According to Gus Martin’s textbook, “Understanding Terrorism,” the purpose for consolidation of these departments was to “bring about central operational coordination and put an end to unproductive overlapping duties” 4) (Gus Martin, (2010) Understanding Terrorism, Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, 3^rd Edition, page 17). Along with everything else affected by 9/11, the reorganization and formation of the new Department of Homeland Security now had administrative authority collectively not to mention becoming the 3^rd largest federal agency.

The question is: did it work? Defragmenting and disorganization was improved upon. Communications and information was the idea. The CIA and FBI boundaries were more clearly defined. FBI takes care of our homeland on homeland shores, the CIA overseas.

Since counter terrorism is the idea, the role the CIA plays causes as much destruction as it does in aiding to apprehend the enemy. The death toll of the 1980’s, 20 years prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, in Nicaragua caused by CIA/contra attacks was well over 30,000 and property and economic damage just shy of $1 billion 5) (Sam Dillon , (1990), A Contra Rampage--With Blessings from the United States APF Reporter Vol.13 #2 Index).

And also since the CIA handles international investigations, their position as support to local law enforcement, the FBI and aiding bounty programs followed through with a certain degree of success. In 1993, a terrorist suspect investigated by the CIA, Mir Aimal Kansi while in the US fled to Pakistan after opening fire on CIA headquarters in Virginia. The very agency intending to apprehend him worked with local law enforcement and the bounty offered paid off. Somebody turned him in, an arrest was made with cooperation from the Pakistani government, and Kansi was brought back to the US incarcerated, tried, convicted and executed for the crimes. Success. When cooperation between Homeland Security departments works along with foreign governments, it works well. 6) (Gus Martin, (2010) Understanding Terrorism, Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, 3^rd Edition, page 494).

In addition to victorious cooperation in capturing Kansi, Mike Lima’s joint operations with the CIA in Nicaragua 1983 is considered one of the agencies finer achievements in spite of the high death toll and extreme property damage. CIA operations after Nicaragua sought to mirror the Nicaragua Sandanista and Kansi models. So what happens when it doesn’t work?

International Law

It became evident after prisoners, alleged terrorists guilty of war crimes, made accusations that inhumane treatment and even torture were practiced regularly as disciplinary actions or interrogation techniques. Interrogating has always been a part of POW life. You’re a prisoner of ours, you have information we want and we have ways of making you talk.

The United Nations were already well on their way to organizing efforts for global war crimes to be defined and tried. One of the many functions of the UN is overseeing International Criminal courts and laws. Even prior to 9/11 the UN with many nations represented that are now and have been for some time considered terrorist nations or sympathizers was holding international conventions. One such convention held November 1997 sought to resolve terrorism issues and suppress bombings by terrorists.

Documentation, articles and amendments are quite lengthy as many laws are. Stating the obvious like specifically defining governments, state and war crimes, every nation represented meticulously outlining reasons why or why not nation representation or issue is or is not addressed 7) (UNITED NATIONS, Distr., GENERAL, A/52/653, (25 November 1997), ENGLISH, ORIGINAL: ARABIC AND ENGLISH, Fifty-second session, Agenda item 152).

From the beginning, the United Nations in 1942 with the help of President Franklin D, Roosevelt during World War II, organized 26 nations with the vision to overcome Axis Powers. Axis Powers at the time being Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Hirohito’s Japan. 8) (About the United Nations/ Histories, (2000), Basic Facts About the United Nations, Sales No. E.00.I.21.

The need to overcome violent dictatorship into the latter part of the 20th century, calming the fears of the world through the Cold War put the UN in a unique position as liaison for world peace. Not an entirely original idea, conflict resolution between hostile nations in the world based its original charter on the idea that conflict prevention is not only achievable but preferable to war 9) (No author given, (2000), Is Peace in the World a Utopian Dream? The Role of the United Nations, The United Nations and a Culture of Peace,). After two world wars, nations of the world collectively agree on one thing, if there should ever be a 3^rd, it could spell inevitable destruction of the world as we know it.

Not everyone views the UN as an asset. In an article written as a result of investigative reporter Martin Scheinin, he found much of the UN’s directives toward anti-terrorism in direct violation of basic human rights and freedoms. Specifically the way detainees are allegedly being treated in prison while being interrogated and awaiting trial, Scheinin cited the USA PATRIOT Act as primary points in weakening the United Nations efforts 10) (No author given, (5/7/2007), While Hailing US Rights Traditions, UN Expert Voices Concern at Anti-Terror Steps, UN News Centre).

Since 2007 more thorough investigations have taken place and a new US president has taken office. Ongoing investigations continue to raise concern. But as my fellow students in this class have stated earlier this week in online discussions, new anti-terrorism laws remove US Constitutional rights to those individuals engaging in terrorist activity toward the US. There again we get into Constitutional law subjectivity as well as the definition of human rights, which is another subject.

Conclusion

I think the US PATRIOT Act was a good starting point. But as the war on terrorism keeps recycling itself and cells divide like cancer, redefinitions to provide for new tactics on war should follow. Law is not my thing, but being an American I AM a bit fond of. Like most Americans I trust my elected officials to cover and protect me and keep America as terrorist free as possible. I see the US PATRIOT Act as a very good effort to do that. Like the reformation of our Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies it can and should be tweaked from time to time.

URL: http://hubpages.com/hub/Terrorism-in-Perspective-11

Labels: English 101A

Patriot Act Article 2

What is the USA PATRIOT Act?

Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.

Why Congress passed the Patriot Act

Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.

The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.

Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.

The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas

The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties

One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.

Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
• Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
• Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
• Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

2. More secret searches

For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.

Notice is a crucial check on the government's power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights.

Finally, this new "sneak and peek" power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence.

3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.

A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution's probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.

The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the "FISA Court"). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal.

4. Expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law

Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.

Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as "Pen register/trap and trace" searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:

"Nationwide" pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."

Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.

The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:

• Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or "addresses" of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we "visit" a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a "conversation" with the author.
• Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orient...

Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.

Citation

Labels: English 101A

Patriot Act Article 1

Former U.S. Army Lieutenant and lawyer Brandon Mayfield may be the Patriot Act's most prominent innocent victim. The federal government imposed warrantless surveillance and a "sneak-and-peek" search of his home upon the innocent U.S. citizen and Muslim convert and arrested him on a "material witness" warrant, even though officials never intended to have him testify in court. In fact, Mayfield was under investigation for supposedly having had a role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, as the FBI initially identified him (using his military service fingerprints) as one of the persons whose fingerprints were on a bag of bomb parts similar to those used in the bombing.

Just days before May field's arrest, Spanish investigators told FBI officials that Mayfield's fingerprint was not a match to the "Latent Fingerprint No. 17" and that FBI officials had erroneously linked to the bombing. Despite being cleared by Spanish authorities (and not having traveled to Europe since 1994), the FBI arrested Mayfield anyway and held him for two weeks without charges on the bogus "material witness" warrant. In the meantime FBI officials leaked to the media that Mayfield was a Madrid bomber, proven through fingerprint "evidence," and told his wife and family that he would be charged with crimes that qualified for the death penalty.

After unjustly imprisoning Mayfield for more than two weeks, ruining his private law practice (including taking all the confidential files of the clients he represents), and terrifying his family, the federal government was eventually forced to admit it had made a "mistake." Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified about what happened to Mayfield before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 8, 2004:

"That is an unfortunate situation which I regret. Anytime any American is detained and we later find out that the detention was not necessary for the maintenance of public safety, and that someone's liberties were offended, I think that's something to regret." The federal government subsequently issued a formal apology for May-field's treatment and agreed to pay him $2 million in compensatory damages.

"When legislation is written that waters down the standard of the Fourth Amendment, it is not the guilty who suffer, but the innocent," Mayfield wrote in a statement on renewal of the Patriot Act, which Congress is considering. "The Patriot Act weakened the requirements the government needed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to bug my home and office, and this weakening of the law--now found unconstitutional--caused the framework designed to protect the innocent to fail."

Lives Ruined

Mayfield's experience with the Patriot Act and misuse of the "material witness" law was not unique. The same happened to native-born American citizen Abdullah al-Kidd. A former football star at the University of Idaho, al-Kidd (born Lavni T Kidd) converted to Islam during college and was abducted by FBI agents using the same "material witness" pretense. Though nominally held to testify in a case for the prosecution of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, federal officials never intended to call al-Kidd to the stand to testify (Al-Hussayen was later acquitted at trial). To the contrary, al-Kidd's arrest in 2002 was quickly touted in federal press releases as a success in breaking up terrorist cells. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before Congress that al-Kidd's arrest was one of five "major successes" in the FBI's efforts toward "identifying and dismantling terrorist networks."

The original "material witness" warrant claimed al-Kidd was planning to flee the country to Saudi Arabia, purchasing a one-way airplane ticket for $5,000 cash. In reality, al-Kidd had purchased a round trip ticket for $1,700, as he had a scholarship to study Islam at a Saudi university. His wife and child planned to remain at home.

The FBI held al-Kidd in dehumanizing conditions in federal prison for 16 days, chaining him to the floor next to a toilet and forcing him to be naked in a cold cell exposed to male and female guards for prolonged periods of time. "I'm a material witness, but these guys are convicts, federal inmates, and they're being treated better than me," al-Kidd later told the New York Times. After al-Kidd was released from prison, he was sentenced to some three years of virtual house arrest. He was ordered to live at his father-in-law's house in Nevada, not to travel out of state, and to see a probation officer weekly--even though he had never committed a crime.

The defense contractor al-Kidd worked for, uncomfortable with the FBI director pegging him as a terror suspect before Congress, fired him. He was unable to find work, and he lost his scholarship to study in Saudi Arabia. Al-Kidd's marriage broke up from the financial strain, and he lost custody of his daughter. "Here I am now, 31, and that dream is shrinking and shrinking," al Kidd told various press outlets. "My reputation is destroyed. ... I keep getting 'no's' from jobs as if I'm an ex-felon." Al-Kidd eventually decided to emigrate to Saudi Arabia to take a job teaching English, but says he'd like to move back home to the United States permanently.

Abdullah al-Kidd eventually sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal court for his deliberate abuse of the material witness statute, which was perhaps based upon Patriot Act surveillance, and won an appellate court decision. "Some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in sometimes primitive conditions, not because there is evidence that they have committed a crime but merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing;' Federal Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. wrote in the 2-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court in 2009 in favor of al-Kidd. Smith went on to call such views "repugnant to the U.S. Constitution" and a "painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history."

Shredding the Fourth

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in March, and from the reports about debate before the court, there's surprisingly little outrage among the justices over imprisoning an innocent American citizen. Moreover, some of the court's most vocally "originalist" justices are those who appear most willing to sign away the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement of probable cause in its protection against unreasonable searches. Justice Antonin Scalia replied to questioning during the al-Kidd case: "But the Fourth Amendment doesn't say you need probable cause. There are situations where you can conduct a search without probable cause. There's the Terry search. There's administrative searches. There's a lot of exceptions." Scalia's "Terry search" remark recalls the 1968 Warren court decision Terry v. Ohio, which alleged a "stop and frisk" exception to the Constitution's Fourth Amendment where a policeman may "stop and frisk" the clothes of a suspect without probable cause (the court said searches were okay with "reasonable suspicion"). The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or

things to be seized.

It's difficult to tell which is more troubling: that Scalia would so blatantly ignore the plain text of the Fourth Amendment, which requires a judicial branch warrant, supported by an oath, probable cause, and specificity, or that he would so readily rely on an anti-Fourth Amendment decision by the post-Warren Court, the most activist court in U.S. history. The Fourth Amendment clearly contains a short preamble declaring the purpose of the amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"), followed by four specific requirements designed to prevent unreasonable searches. Scalia's "interpretation" of the plain English of the Fourth Amendment is no different from the Left's dishonest "interpretation" of the Second Amendment that it only supports an ''organized militia" (from the amendment's preamble) and not a declaration that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court's rejection of the plain text of the Fourth Amendment since the Terry case has emboldened the executive branch to further erode this key part of the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11 attacks, the federal government has come to believe it doesn't need a warrant or specificity to search the private property of American citizens. The Patriot Act allows the FBI to issue its own search warrants--without judges--so long as they call them "National Security Letters" (NSLs), and NSLs have served as the federal impetus to engage in the widespread data mining of Americans' personal information. An internal Justice Department review of FBI use of NSLs found that they had "circumvented the requirements of the Electronic Communications Privacy" law passed by Congress, contained "factual misstatements," and often had nothing to do with any active investigation requested by prosecutors. The Cato Institute's Julian Sanchez summarized the Inspector General's report, noting that the FBI had subpoenaed many more documents than they even have staff to review. "Just in fiscal 2008, the FBI alone collected 878,383 hours (or just over 100 years) of audio, much of it in foreign languages; 1,610,091 pages of text; and 28,795,212 electronic files. A recent review of FBI backlogs by the Office of the Inspector General found that fully a quarter of the audio collected between 2003 and 2008 remained unreviewed (including 6 percent of counterterror acquisitions and 31 percent of counterintelligence acquisitions, the two categories covered by FISA wiretaps). Let that sink in for a second: They have literally years worth of audio material alone that the Bureau itself can't be sure of the contents of, never mind any kind of independent oversight body."

The FBI demanded under the Patriot Act that Internet service providers (ISPs) install recording devices to spy on their customers at will, using a barrage of NSLs to demand the data. Nick Merrill of Calyx Internet Access, an ISP start-up, was one of those telecommunications providers. He sued in court to stop the attack on his customers' privacy. But he had to sue anonymously in order to avoid being charged under the Patriot Act with a felony that could earn him five years in prison. NSLs come with a gag order. Merrill endured six years of silence before winning (in part) a court case that allowed him to inform the world that he had to install wiretapping devices on his servers, though he remains gagged about the contents of the NSL he was served back in 2004. Merrill observed that "one of the things that leapt out at me about this letter was that it was not signed by a judge. It was signed by someone from the FBI. You know, it seemed to me that that undercuts the whole system of checks and balances that we have, and I didn't believe it was legal. And I had been reading about, you know, all the new powers under the PATRIOT Act, and it just seemed to me that I didn't have much choice but to say something about it."

These gag orders are probably why more innocent victims of the Patriot Act are not publicly known. As with the NSLs, most of the Patriot Act abuse occurs behind the veil of secrecy. And of course, if the law that provides the basis for the abuse is not challenged, the abuses can be expected to multiply.

It's this kind of abuse of American citizens, through a direct attack on the four-fold protections of the Fourth Amendment, that has caused an increasing number of Americans and Congressmen to call for repeal or reform of the Patriot Act. Three provisions associated with the USA Patriot Act are scheduled to expire May 27, and Congress is considering several proposals to extend these provisions to allow wiretapping by the FBI and other national security officials without the constitutionally required "probable cause" or specificity in the warrant. Congress passed a 90-day extension of the Patriot Act in February.

Extending Tyrannical Abuses

The three provisions slated to expire are:

1. The so-called "library provision," section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows national security investigators to issue a seizure order for "any tangible thing," including gun sales records, library records, medical records, or any other private information.

2. The "John Doe" provision, section 206 of the Patriot Act, which allows national security investigators to search the private information of people, even if it does not know the name of the target.

3. The so-called "Lone Wolf provision, which was implemented in part by the original Patriot Act and strengthened by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and allows national security investigators to search non-U.S. persons who aren't part of a known terrorist cell and don't have known ties to a foreign government.

The Patriot Act also includes a number of other changes to the law that do not have to be extended because they were made permanent in the original Patriot Act or in the 2006 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act:

* Expanded definition of wiretapping to include computer and wireless tapping;

* National Security Letters;

* Extending the duration of after-the-fact warrants for wiretapping or searches of foreign intelligence or terror suspect targets under FISA courts from 45 days to 120 days;

* A sneak-and-peek provision allowing the federal government not to notify a target of investigation that their house or property has been searched;

* A "business records" search provision that allows the federal government to place equipment at communications providers that allow it to wiretap at will and to take "any tangible thing" from a business related to an investigation, along with a provision that prohibits the businesses from announcing publicly they were wiretapped or searched (the gag order part was declared unconstitutional by U.S. courts);

*Increased authority for pen registers and other wiretap devices in communications and electronic devices.

Under the "library provision" set to sunset in May, a federal court that grants a warrant is not explicitly required to demand "probable cause" needed for a search warrant or seizure by the FBI required by the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the FBI must merely supply a "statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation." "Reasonable grounds," according to the FBI, is not even close to the constitutional standard of "probable cause," although the Fourth Amendment defines "unreasonable" searches as ones that don't have a court warrant, supported by an oath, probable cause, and details of what's going to be searched and seized. The "John Doe" provision ignores the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Senate Tea Party Caucus co-founder, announced his opposition to Patriot Act renewal in a February 15 letter to his Senate colleagues because these two provisions (Library and John Doe) too closely resemble the Writs of Assistance that the British crown issued against American colonists just prior to the American Revolution:

James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.

He condemned these general warrants as "the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book." Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they "placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges--not soldiers or policemen--would issue warrants. Otis' battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

But Senator Paul is in the minority, certainly in his own party. The Senate adopted the 90-day extension of the Patriot Act by an 86-12 vote in February, with only one other Republican in opposition, Utah Senator Mike Lee (also a Tea Party Caucus co-founder). The House also adopted the 90-day extension by an overwhelming vote, with Republicans mostly favoring the bill. Even so, eight House members associated with the Tea Party opposed the Patriot Act renewal. (Thirty-one Representatives affiliated with the Tea Party voted to pass the Patriot Act extension.)

In his New York Times best-selling book The Constitution in Exile, former New Jersey judge and Fox Business Channel host Andrew Napolitano calls "the Patriot Act and its progeny ... the most abominable, unconstitutional assaults on personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798." Congress should be actively engaged in repealing more provisions of the Patriot Act, not extending the provisions scheduled to sunset, if they intend to honor their oath to "support and defend the U.S. Constitution."

Citation:

Eddlem, Thomas R. "Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act: Congress is considering extending three provisions of the USA Patriot Act, but they would do better to repeal the whole unconstitutional law." The New American 18 Apr. 2011: 17+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 June 2011. <http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Magazines&disableHighlighting=true&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CA254829717&mode=view&userGroupName=port19443&jsid=a5fc96d9e6ee8271a3ccf7c525309a6d>

Labels: English 101A

Rodriguez Essay

Daniel Contreras
English 101A
13 July 2011

Unalienable Pain

In the book, Hunger of Memory, written by Richard Rodriguez, he commits many errors of logic that are also known as fallacies. In chapter two, Rodriguez claims that academic success is only possible when a student sheds away from his or her primal relationship to their family. Rodriguez persists that he was given a great education during his childhood; consequently, it caused him to lose all present intimacy with his family and the language of Spanish. Later on, he describes his parents in a negative light: misunderstanding, oppressed, and submissive. Moreover, in chapter six, he later argues that those who cannot reveal their inner feelings by the means of writing are strongly targeted by oppression. Rodriguez assumes that the reader will wholeheartedly agree with him and his arguments; however, he tends to only analyze one point of view: his point of view.
Certainly, in chapter two, Rodriguez stresses that his academic success was a byproduct of his cleansing from his family relations; in fact, he goes as far as saying that in order to be a good student he or she must change his or her own childhood practices in order to have a successful education, even if it means putting ones relatives in the back-burner. Throughout the chapter, Rodriguez emphasizes his triumphant education. As a result, he receives praise from peers. Even though he has reached the end of his journey to education, Rodriguez yearns for the family intimacy he once had during his childhood. Nonetheless, he strongly believes that no child can achieve educational superiority while maintaining strong ties with their immediate family. Since he found it, Rodriguez has continuously and religiously followed the book that supports his point.
Since he followed only one source, Rodriguez' argument lacks potency. He himself even admits, "I read...only to find infrequent and slight mention of students like me" (Rodriguez 48). Until he found Richard Hoggart's text titled The Uses of Literacy, Richard felt alienated: different and not belonging. After he examined the text, he was "able to frame the meaning of...[his] academic success...[and] the loss" (Rodriguez 48). Rodriguez uncritically accepts Hoggart's research without taking into account the many things that may differ between students; for example, the customs of the family and the type of school attended are not the same for every "scholarship boy" (48). Rodriguez reliably clings onto his own childhood which was engulfed by two starkly different worlds: his private catholic school and his traditional Mexican household (50). He argues that students cannot be a success both at home and at school simultaneously, yet look at his siblings. They all maintained their family ties and received highly rewarding careers.
Moreover, Rodriguez' argument offers really only two options: break one's family ties or become an academic failure. This is an either or fallacy that does not take into account all of the existing possibilities; for example, a student can have close intimate family ties and still graduate from college to receive a prestigious career. Making its logic questionable, Rodriguez' argument neglects that possibility. Rodriguez cannot argue that argument based on a very narrow viewpoint like his. Afterwards, Rodriguez argues that people unable to express their feelings by writing are dangerously suppressed people. For example, his mother and father rarely write, but when they do write it is out of obligation not by choice; in contrast, because of his prior education, Rodriguez is able to write well. In his writings, he creates decoys to which he can direct and express all his intrinsic problems. Even though his mother kindly requested him not to, Rodriguez writes this autobiography revealing the family's personal opinions and struggles. As a result, he has angered, disappointing, and hurt several people. Although he argues that reporting the truth is his duty as a writer, he should take into account the feelings of those he is writing about.
Name, when Rodriguez received a written letter from his mother it requested, "Please write about something else in the future" (193). Painting his parents in a bad picture, he feels the obligation to write a detailed autobiography about his family. This indeed seems to be a very selfish thing to do; also, the argument is a fallacy as well. Because both did not receive a complete education, his parents may not understand Rodriguez' interest in literature. Similarly, all three of them share this unalienable pain; however, Rodriguez is the only one who uses the means of writing to acknowledge it. Although Rodriguez argues it is, writing is not the only way the parents are able to express themselves. There are other means of expressing one's feelings and thoughts: art, music, storytelling, and so on. His argument says that writing is the only way to express one's self, but that is clearly not the case.
Finally, the author realizes that he has achieved a great deal from his education; however, after reading the story it leaves one with several questions: What will Rodriguez' parents feel after reading Hunger of Memory? Will Rodriguez ever return to his roots? As the saying goes, one must never forget where we come from. "It is a lonely adventure" for Rodriguez since he has peaked in one world but sunk in another (202).

Labels: English 101A

Bodie Pictures to Print

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/228/0/0/Bodie_Layers_by_kayaksailor.jpg

http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00005FiU1KAqN.Y/s/750/750/Bodie-State-Historic-Park-81.jpg

Labels: Speech

Narrative Speech

Contreras, Daniel
Speech 11:15 am
Narrative Speech
(Double spaced, 12 font, Arial)

Introduction:
By a show of hands, how many of you have been to Las Vegas? Come on, be honest. Okay now with another show of hands, how many of you have been to a ghost town? Well I'm probably gonna have to wait two more years to get the full Las Vegas experience; although, I have visited a full fledged legit ghost town named Bodie. It's so deserted that there's not even a ghost in sight. I know, I checked.

Conclusion:
Even though some of us are not old enough to get the whole Las Vegas experience, well all are old enough to visit such a unique place. Next time you're thinking of a place to vacation, or heck even go to Vegas, it wouldn't be bad to venture in a ghost town. Who knows, maybe you'll find some leftover gold?








Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodie,_California

Labels: Speech

Class Essay

@5752
English 101A
Professor Robert Vasquez
Class Status Essay
20 June 2011
Gloves and a Silver Spoon
Lawrence Kasdan’s film Grand Canyon metaphorically represents the differences between the low class and the high class. There is insight into the lives of several characters’ that allow them to figure out why the characters behave and feel a certain way. Each character’s class is determined by the following: clothing, housing, and occupation. In order to distinguish each class, we must look at Paul Fussell’s guide titled Class which points out and specifically explains the characteristics within each class. According to the text, research persuaded Fussell that there are nine social classes in total (Fussell 27). Mack, a respectable upper middle class immigration lawyer, lives in a well-off neighborhood and in an extravagant house with both his wife and son. In the beginning of the movie, Mack meets a mid-to-high proletarian (prole) tow-truck driver whose name is Simon. The friendship between them clicked and they both became closer friends as the movie gradually proceeded.
Mack’s clothing choices signal that he lives comfortably, and also that he is living the lifestyle of an upper middle. He oftentimes wears a tie showcasing a subtle design which is pointed out in Fussell’s text: “The ties worn by the top classes…[rely] on stripes, amoeba-like foulard blobs, or small dots to make the point that the wearer possesses too much class to care to specify right now out in front what it’s based on” (Fussell 67). Rarely does he wear an outfit that does not include a tie or suit; most mid-prole people would not be able to sustain such a thing. Fussell lists materials that are popular among the upper middle class that includes cotton, wool, and leather. Mack more than likely wears clothes made out of the most organic materials available. Paul Fussell says, “Organic materials like wool…outrank mad-made [materials] like nylon” (Fussell 71). Mack is also much more expendable with his wardrobe. He wears various outfits and seldom does he repetitively wear the same clothing. Mack remains, professional but he does not overdo it.
Simon, unlike Mack, is a mid-to-high proletarian and the idea is supported by his clothing preferences. "Legible clothing"...[are] things like T-Shirts or caps with messages on them you're supposed to read and admire" (Fussell 56). Early in the film, Simon is wearing a cap displaying his favorite sports team; in fact, team affiliated clothing is common within prole groups. Simon wears t-shirts and jeans off and on the job. Mack on the other hand, wears suits. Simon shows the audience that he rarely dresses fancy. When he does it is simple compared to Mack's. Simon's fancy attire consists of a purple sweater and slacks. According to Fussell's text, "If navy is the upper-middle-class color, purple is the prole equivalent" (Fussell 55) Simon and Mack do not try to keep themselves flawlessly neat; besides, having "excessively neat" and "excessively new" clothing are both low class signs.
However, living in an "excessively neat" and "excessively new" house is normal amongst many of the upper-middle-class people such as Mack. He lives in a Los Angeles area where every house is neatly arranged and seeping with high class. These households very often hire servants to take care of the property since the uppers obviously have no time to waste catering to every little stigma. Mack's backyard is marvelously built with natural wood furniture and the backyard is lush and lively. The organic-materials rule also applies to houses; moreover, there are certain areas where wood is regularly found: kitchen floors, patio furniture, and windows. "On a large house they presuppose a servant (or outdoor man)" (Fussell 84). Mack's wife, Claire, is a stay-at-home mother whose duty is to clean and organize. They live in a fairly large residence; consequently, her cleaning tasks vary a lot more. Mack's home has many shelves filled with books which infers that they do value literature and reading. Their living room also shows that they value art by displaying original oil paintings like a museum would; indeed, upper class homes tend to look like "art galleries and museums" (Fussell 89).
Simon’s house reflects his proletarian social status. He lives on the second floor of an apartment building. His house is a moderately small unit; however, he manages to fill it with many items. One notable item Simon owns is a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) which he uses regularly to contact his deaf daughter. By the TDD, among the other desk-top items, a miniature ornament of Abraham Lincoln sits proudly. "Quote goes here" said Fussell (Fussell 89).
A majority of the upper-middle class people holds educational values and strives to get a prestigious job such as physician and lawyer. Mack’s has a job as an L.A. immigration lawyer with his own office and personal assistant, Dee. His working schedules sometimes interfere with his other duties but very rarely. He has a lot of personal freedom doing his job.
On the other hand, Simon works on a more proletarian job. His main duty is to tow automobiles. During the movie, the audience sees that Simon works on a very dangerous job. Upon meeting, Simon and Mack are confronted by a street gang of muggers armed with a gun. Simon makes ends meet; in addition, he continues to sustain his daughter financially to be able to keep attending a respectable college for hearing impaired people.
Class is an issue that many try to avoid. Even though Mack and Simon remain friends, they will always be categorized into different social groups because of their clothing, housing, and occupation. So many things restrict them because of their social class. Will Mack ever be truly satisfied and happy with family and life; likewise, will Simon someday be able to go to a basketball game and sit on the front row with his friends? Some people may never fully understand the magnitude that social class plays in their lives. Fussell explained, "Most Americans...think that class has to do with money...[but] it has very little to do with money. It has to do with taste and style, and it has to do with the development of those features by acts of character" ("A Conversation"). 
Works Cited
Fussell, Paul. Class: a Guide through the American Status System. New York: Summit, 1983. Print.
Class. Dir. Lawrence Kasdan. Perf. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline. 20th Century Fox, 1991. Film.
"A Conversation with Paul Fussell." The National Endowment for the Humanities. Humanities, Nov.-Dec. 1996. Web. 20 June 2011. .

Labels: English 101A

Things to buy && Summer schedule

4 digit bike lock
Clean & Clear Blackhead eraser
Deodorant
Mouthwash

=================================================
50029 Expository Composition 6/13-07/20 MTW 5:30 pm - 9:35 pm SM 121 Robert Vasquez
50068 Intro to Public Speaking 06/14-07/21 TWTh 11:15 am - 2:05 pm CA 4 Muriel Josten