Editorial Note: Stormy Luttrell Jackson of Marco Island, Florida is an active member of the isolationist Constitution Party, and a vigorous supporter of Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign. She says “I will defend Ron Paul to the end, this man makes sense. . . The war-mongering George W. Bush wouldn’t negotiate peace. He didn’t want Osama bin Laden. He wanted Afghanistan!”’
Jackson, 47, describes herself as “very stubborn and determined. If I believe in something and do not agree with you, I will argue my point to the end.”
JACKSON: The Patriot Act is the worst violation of our liberties in history, but my Congressman Allan West (R-FL) supports it! What kind of patriot votes for an act to take away our rights? Getting rid of the Patriot Act should be the most important activity for Americans right now.
It takes away our given rights and makes the USA a police state. This is a serious violation of the Constitution and West will never get my vote. He voted to extend the Patriot Act and he wants us to trust him? No thanks! Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) also voted for the Patriot Act. I voted for him also, but never, ever again.
HILTON: I really admire West and Rubio and they were wise to support the Patriot Act which is essential to our national security. No one loses any rights because of the Patriot Act. You clearly do not understand the legislation. It is nonsense to say America is becoming a police state. The only people who lose rights because of the Patriot Act are terrorists.
JACKSON: I am laughing my friggin’ ass off. The Patriot Act takes away our Constitutional rights. Not for terrorists, but for everyone. We must defeat any politician that supports it. You must be smoking so good dope, or believing a pile of BS. Anyone that is okay with this Patriot Act needs to do research. No Allan West!
HILTON: I have never smoked dope or anything else. I leave that to the Ron Paul supporters. I am not sure why you are picking on Allan West. Over 80% of Republicans on Capitol Hill support the Patriot Act, only 26 House Republicans opposed it.
This legislation is essential because terrorists have already attempted to blow up skyscrapers in Texas and Illinois. They attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit. They wanted to kill commuters on New York City’s subway. Another bomb was set for Times Square. 26 American citizens or residents have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in the past two years. Why would we want to abolish the legislation which is protecting us?
JACKSON: Once again, the Patriot Act violates the Constitution. It is the Constitution that protects us from terrorism abroad and at home by sneaky politicians.
HILTON: The Constitution did not protect us on 9/11. The Patriot Act saves lives and protects all Americans. It does not violate the Constitution and it has never been found to be unconstitutional.
For almost a decade the United States has been successful in stopping acts of terrorism before they are launched. We have accomplished this through effective intelligence collection, information-sharing and counter-terrorism operations.
They are the best tools we have, and they were made possible by the Patriot Act. In 2009 alone, authorities foiled at least six terrorist plots against the United States. Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement. Only 9/11 succeeded.
The Patriot Act has been law for a decade and innocent Americans are not suffering because of it. If that was the case we would not have been able to renew it four times already. Congress would not have passed it five times and Bush and Obama would not have signed it if was making our nation a police state.
JACKSON: America existed for hundreds of years without this intrusive Patriot Act. You obviously do not understand that it is a violation of our Constitutional rights.
A good new book and a true story for everyone to read so they will know how horrific the Patriot Act is “Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq” by Susan Lindauer http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudice-Terrifying-Story-Patriot/dp/1453642757.
She is one of many Americans that spent time in prison in the name of the Patriot Act without due cause or a speedy trial. Think again, do the research, and do not believe BS from polished politicians like Allan West.
HILTON: You are correct that terrorists were not flying airliners into skyscrapers in the 18th and 19th centuries, but terrorism has been a problem since the begging of the republic. Thomas Jefferson had to battle the Barbary Pirates in what is today known as Libya.
Thanks for mentioning Susan Lindauer who should be in jail. The only reason she was set free was because of mental illness. According to her indictment, Lindauer worked with Iraqi agents based in New York starting in 1999, and even met them in Manhattan on September 19, 2001, the week following the 9/11 attack.
She was arrested several months after meeting with an FBI agent who posed as a Libyan intelligence agent looking to recruit support for Iraqi groups attacking U.S. forces in the aftermath of the war.
The indictment said Lindauer and the agent “discussed the need for plans and foreign resources to support [resistance] groups operating within Iraq.” The US government said Lindhauer was working as an unregistered foreign agent for Iraq.
Lindauer met with the fake Libyan agent once again on July 17, 2003, to discuss the same topic. The undercover FBI agent instructed Lindauer to leave a set of documents at a designated spot in Takoma Park, Maryland, where she lives.
She delivered the documents on August 6, 2003, and left another set on August 21st. Lindauer remained in regular e-mail contact with the FBI undercover agent, whom she believed was working for Libya.
Lindauer and her co-conspirators gave Iraqi intelligence agents information about Iraqi expatriates in the United States. Prosecutors say Lindauer usually met with Iraqi intelligence agents in New York and was reimbursed for her travel and meals.
Lindauer traveled to Baghdad in February 2002 as a guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service and accepted about $5,000 in cash from the agents. In all, Lindauer is charged with receiving about $10,000 from the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
She was found mentally unfit to stand trial and all charges were dropped in 2009. Judge Michael B. Mukasey determined she could not be forced to take anti-psychotic medication which would make her competent to stand trial.
In her book Lindauer claims to have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and claims her alleged CIA handler Richard Fuisz also had detailed foreknowledge of the attacks. Dr. Fuisz did not work for the CIA.
JACKSON: I believe her. She does claim to have foreknowledge, and her book can be verified. Your information is false. Susan Lindauer is related to Andy Card. They are cousins and at the time she was arrested in 2004 he was Bush’s Chief of Staff.
Is this woman mentally insane? No, she was set up. It was all done in the name of the Patriot Act. Dr. Richard Fuisz and Paul Hoven were both involved. This is what happens to someone telling the truth, which is different from what we are supposed to know. She did not want war. She knew Iraq was a needless war.
She wanted to prevent the cruel sanctions on Iraq. This is what happened when she told the truth. She went to prison in the name of the Patriot Act. She took nothing from Iraq. Everything that happened to her was done in the name of the Patriot Act.
HILTON: Susan Lindauer does have prominent relatives. Her father was a candidate for Governor of Alaska. Many families have been impacted by mental illness. You claim Susan Lindauer was not mentally insane and was set up. Two federal judges, in rulings three years apart both said you are wrong. They said Susan Lindauer was suffering from a mental disease or defect.
Loretta A. Preska of Federal District Court in Manhattan said Lindauer was “unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her or to assist properly in her defense.” Judge Mukasey had earlier said Lindauer was “seriously disturbed.” She had paranoia and delusions of grandeur.
You are praising Lindauer for her work against the “cruel sanctions” on Iraq. You were also against Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bottom line is that you wanted to do nothing about Saddam Hussein or any other dictator. That is very typical of Ron Paul supporters.
You mentioned Dr. Richard Fuisz who testified before Congress in 1992 that Terex Corporation had built mobile Scud missile launchers for Saddam Hussein with the “CIA’s blessing”. The company immediately filed a libel suit against him. A 16-month federal investigation concluded there was “no credible evidence” to support the accusation. The New York Times printed a retraction of their article by Seymour Hersh.
You also mention Paul Hoven who says Lindauer is “nuts.” Libyan has admitted its involvement in the Lockerbie, Scotland Pan Am bombing, and Gaddhaffi has paid $2.7 billion in restitution to the victims. That was not good enough for Lindauer and Dr. Fuisz. They both claim Libya was innocent, and Syria committed the crime. There is no credible evidence to support their allegation. Dr. Fuisz also says Lindauer is mentally unstable.
JACKSON: Federal judges are part of a judicial system which can be manipulated. That could have happened. The system can be easily manipulated at the top. Yes, I am against sanctions and this woman and others have likely been used as a guinea pig.
Have you ever seen or heard of the many innocent children and babies who suffer and die because of sanctions? Look these leaders are handpicked, trained by the CIA and taught what the US needs at the time. Once we are done with them, and they are spent or policy changes, they are taken down and replaced with our encouragement by another dictator and this cycle repeats itself over and over.
We do as we please. I agree with Dr. Fuisz and Lindauer. The mentally unstable accusation was used to get her out of this mess after our country denied the truth. If it looks orange it is most likely purple when the truth is out. Unfortunately most Americans never research far enough to get to the truth, so many settle for the media controlled stories that spew out inaccuracies.
HILTON: The children of Iraq did not suffer and die because of sanctions. Iraq has the world’s second largest oil reserves. They have plenty of money, but Saddam Hussein would not feed his own people. He let them starve for propaganda reasons.
I do not believe the Justice Department, the Attorney General, two federal judges, the prosecutor and independent medical experts were manipulated or lied. I do not share your fondness for conspiracy theories.
You claim to agree with both Dr. Fuisz and Susan Lindauer. Once again, even Fuisz says Lindauer was mentally unstable. It is only the radical libertarians and the 9/11 truthers who regard her as a credible source.
You always want to look the other way when confronted with evil. You were opposed to both sanctions and Operation Iraqi Freedom. You wanted to do nothing about Saddam Hussein and his tremendous human rights violations. You are well to the left of liberal Democrats. They wanted the Bush Administration to give UN sanctions more time to work.
Sanctions went into effect at the time of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and they lasted until his down fall in 2003. If it was up to you and Ron Paul, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and he would still be exporting terrorism. An excellent case can be made against sanctions by those who supported the US military mission which you opposed. Our military brought the sanctions to an end.
You are correct that a large number of people, especially children, were dying every day during the sanctions period. Sanctions were maintained because of Saddam Hussein’s refusal to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. His refusal to comply with the UN remains a mystery, but the result is not. During the sanctions period, Iraq’s GDP declined by 75%.
According to the World Health Organization, during the next decade over 500,000 Iraqi children needlessly died of malnutrition. Their story is told in two powerful documentaries, “Genocide by Sanctions” (1999) which claimed the total the number was 1.25 million, and “Killing the Children of Iraq—A Price Worth Paying” (2000).
Iraq obviously had the available funds to feed those children, and if a problem developed, international humanitarian organizations would have gladly made food assistance donations. Once again, the children died because they were being used for political propaganda purposes, and the construction of 54 palaces was a far higher priority. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.
In a 1996 “60 Minutes” interview, Lesley Stahl questioned our then UN Ambassador, Madeleine Albright, about the sanctions policy. Stahl said “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.” In her book, “Madam Secretary”, Albright regretted the tone of her comment and said: “I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Little effort was made to explain Saddam’s culpability, his misuse of Iraqi resources, or the fact that we were not embargoing medicine or food. . . . Religious and human rights groups may be well-meaning [but] they need to understand who the real villain is.
“The villain is Saddam Hussein. It is not the international community that is keeping the Iraqi children and people from eating. It is Saddam Hussein. . . . He is the one that can pick up the key and let himself out of the sanctions box. He knows how to do it.”
On the positive side, there are no longer any political prisoners, no executions, no torture at Abu Ghraib Prison and no limit on the freedom of expression. The terrorists have not abandoned Iraq, but the large scale inhuman carnage and suffering has stopped, and 27 million people will have a better life.
JACKSON: The Patriot Act adds more layers of unneeded controls. This is a known fact with our system, it is disorganized chaos. With the Patriot Act, information is gathered on civilians. I can be labeled a terrorist for having different views and yet I love my country.
The Patriot Act allows American citizens to be labeled incorrectly as terrorists. I remember last election, Ron Paul supporters with bumper stickers were labeled as terrorists.
HILTON: None of your claims are true. No one has been arrested for displaying a Ron Paul bumper sticker. Many potential terrorists are now in custody because of the Patriot Act. For the first time it allows the FBI and the CIA to work together.
The Patriot Act has made it possible for various federal law enforcement agencies to collect and share information, and they have gained access to information and communications of terrorists that was not possible in the past.
Before the Patriot Act, the FBI and the CIA were prohibited from communicating. The legislation enabled the monitoring of conversations among multiple terror suspects more quickly and efficiently. It was necessary because terrorists often discontinue their phones lines or change cell phones frequently.
It gave law enforcement agencies permission to listen in on any phone being used by a terror suspect. Prior to the Patriot Act’s passage in October 2001, law enforcement could wiretap only a landline — and authorities needed to acquire separate court approvals for every phone line they tapped.
The Patriot Act recognizes modern technology, and blackberries and disposable cell phones are no longer safe for them. Voicemail can be accessed through a search warrant rather than a court order. In March of last year FBI director Robert Mueller said the Patriot Act was “exceptionally helpful.”
As recognized in the Declaration of Independence, the first responsibility of government is to preserve the lives and liberty of the people. Within the boundaries of the Constitution, the Patriot Act has been an enormous success in stopping the people who want to kill Americans on U.S. soil.
Instead of providing a single example of the Patriot Act being misused, opponents such as yourself make frightening, unsubstantiated claims that the Patriot Act is a virtual roll back of the First Amendment.
JACKSON: The FBI and the CIA do not work well together, that is common knowledge, so are they now working together by this magical Patriot Act? Terrorist did not exist on our soil till we started meddling in the Middle East. We cannot destroy and murder and then expect little countries to smile upon us.
We have a Constitution in place to protect our liberties. We do not need a Patriot Act that violates our freedom of speech, allows arrest and classification of citizens as terrorists, held without speedy trials, and distrust of its citizens. The Patriot Act allows property searches and secret searches without due cause.
HILTON: The Patriot Act is in full compliance with the 4th amendment and there are no secret searches. What you are referring to is delayed notification. This provision is designed to prevent the failure of a major terrorist investigation.
Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows a judge to grant a delay if they find “reasonable cause” to believe that prior notice would result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or other serious jeopardy to an investigation.
In this case, the judge will likely allow a delay, since notice could seriously jeopardize the investigation, and would likely result in evidence tampering and witness intimidation. Once again. the delay is temporary. The government must notify the person of the search “within a reasonable period.”
Section 213 is not a new legal power. For decades, federal courts have allowed investigators to delay notice of a search in drug cases, organized crime, and child pornography.
JACKSON: The Patriot Act has been used against individuals. It has! What the Constitution states is not upheld and it is violated by the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act allows arrest without trial. It stifles your freedom of speech. It allows wiretapping of our cell phones.
You can be labeled as a terrorist and held in prison indefinitely for speaking against leaders of your country. Research it, and do not vote for anyone that voted for the Patriot Act and this includes Allan West!
It should have been called the Violate Me Act. I will not vote for anyone including West and Rubio that voted for it. I helped put both of these men in office but I am very disappointed they voted to violate our rights with the Patriot Act.
HILTON: All of your claims about the Patriot Act are false. A surveillance or search can be ordered only if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The Patriot Act does nothing to stop your freedom of speech but that claim is often made by your hero Ron Paul and his allies in the ACLU.
They both focus on wiretaps which they claim “pose a greater challenge to privacy because they are authorized secretly without a showing of probable cause of crime. This represents a broad expansion of power without building in a necessary privacy protection.”
For years law enforcement has been able to use “roving wiretaps” – in which a wiretap authorization attaches to a particular suspect, rather than a particular communications device – to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering.
The authority to use roving wiretaps in drug cases has existed since 1986. The Patriot Act authorized the same techniques in national-security investigations. A number of federal courts have ruled that roving wiretaps are perfectly consistent with the First and Fourth Amendments.
JACKSON: They are not false accusations. Anyone can look up the Patriot Act and see problems with it. If you do not think people have been held against their will in the name of the Patriot Act, you are mistaken.
HILTON: Can you name anyone who has been falsely convicted because of the Patriot Act? Once again, it has been a public law for a decade. The Patriot Act has been debated four times before the House and Senate. No lawmaker, except Ron Paul, is claiming people are being held against their will.
Instead of providing a single example of the Patriot Act being misused, opponents make frightening, unsubstantiated claims that the Patriot Act is a virtual roll back of the First Amendment.
JACKSON: The Patriot Act allows illegal searches.
HILTON: The Patriot Act does not allow illegal searches. It has very stringent controls. To obtain a warrant, the government must offer specific evidence that the target is both involved in terror related activities and is trying to evade surveillance. This has nothing to do with the surveillance of innocent Americans.
Furthermore, surveillance is only ordered when the suspect engage in criminal wrongdoing which could result in death. Law enforcement has to show that the conduct appears to have been committed with a specified terrorist related intent.
JACKSON: I am not changing my stance but will consider what you said. I believe the Patriot Act is a violation of our Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect Americans, we do not need extra police and extra layers of government. We truly are going to become a county we may not be pleased with, with no turning back at some point. I believe we are almost there.
I do not buy into every conspiracy theory, but I do believe we are told only bits and pieces some days, and not the truth. Is this for our protection? It is really for profits, control, and the greedy. Americans often decide that war is the only solution.
HILTON: The Patriot Act has been highly successful in keeping us safe. It allows intelligence-gathering activities and cooperation that are defeating the terrorists. Over 80% of Republicans support the Patriot Act. I am pleased that President Obama has reversed himself and now supports the Patriot Act.
The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General both wrote to every lawmaker urging Congress to renew the Patriot Act. Attorney General Holder said this was a critical tool which “has been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection operations.” FBI Director Robert Mueller says it is “exceptionally helpful.”
Real patriots support the Patriot Act.