SwiftVets.com

[rua]

>>The Penalties for Violating HIPAA Privacy Standards

42 USC 1320d-6 (HIPAA Sec. 1177) contains the criminal penalties for violating the HIPAA privacy standards. It states:

"a. Offense.—

A person who knowingly and in violation of this part—

uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;
obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

b. Penalties.—

A person described in subsection (a) shall—

be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and
if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."<<

Perhaps someone should covertly post the HIPAA over on Kerry's website I know it'll be taken down, but they'll get the idea, probably not think twice about it, but they can't say they weren't warned.

[Mona]

Let me clarify that the ACLU can be of no help in preventing this putrid plan of Kerry & Co, and they actually have sometimes come to the assitance of non-leftists. The ACLU only takes cases where there is a transgression of a constitutional right, and as revolting as this "dossier" ploy is, the Kerry camp is not prohibited from pursuing it.

Hiring PIs is not illegal. Releasing to the public what they find is not illegal (unless some medical information protected by HIPAA is at issue). The Swiftees have even less protection than most citizens because by their actions they have made themselves "public figures."

Don't get me wrong: I think what Kerry is doing is repulsive beyond description, but it was predictable, and I in fact did predict it to friends on a political board where I frolic. Have any Swiftees gone bankrupt? Any been sued and lost? Any had a DUI? A domestic violence incident? An extra-marital affair? You know, any of the foibles one would almost certainly find in any population of 250? That is all fodder for Kerry. After all, the Swift Vets are hurting him, and you know what happens when you poke a hornets' nest.

It's disgusting, but not unconstitutional.
_________________
--Mona--

[fortdixlover]

[Tom Poole]

How about it ACLU. Do civil liberties extend to veterans? Perhaps you'd like it better if 25 million veterans marched in demonstration against the 250,000 currently in New York?
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2

[Bostonian]

Is this for real?

If it is, we likely cannot stop it, but it would also expose the unbelievable ugliness of the Kerry Kampaign. The key then would be getting Americans to see what had happened.

[ccr]

There are conservative legal foundations as well that could be of assistance here. The relationship that SBVT has with Creative Response Concepts or Ben Ginsberg should be able to provide an introduction to the Landmark Legal Foundation or another similiar group -- if there is a legal case to be made. Up to this point, there is no clear indication of any HIPAA or other privacy act violation.
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.

http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/

[DenisC]

Dossier’s? Lets see.. DUI's, Bad Divorce, etc.. Compared with a US Naval Officer meeting with the NVA in Paris? Treason, compared with what? I think this will blow up in their face.
_________________
DenisC
173rd Airborne, RVN '65-67'

[cedarford]

Mona -

This would be a civil liberties concern that might, just might have involved the ACLU if they hadn't already declared total war against Bush for the Patriot Act. If you begin to have powerful wealthy government officials compiling dossiers on private citizens that speak out against them - you have a chilling effect on Freedom of Speech and open expression of political dissent.

Historically, of course, the ACLU was foursquare behind those private citizens Nixon compiled his "Enemies List" dossiers against.

But for the most part, the modern ACLU is dominated by big city Jewish liberal/radical lawyers, Leftist gentile academics - and as another poster said, they have their own agenda. Which doesn't include acknowledging the 2nd Amendment exists for the people, for starters.

If Kerry does act and start going after private citizens expressing dissenting opinions, I imagine that the leadership of the SwiftVets is ready right now. With lawyers, PR folks loaded with responses, draft letters and video sound bites for the media. Calling such a Kerry tactic if he goes through with it, a resurrection of Nixonian tactics and a new "Enemies List" by a man unfit to command and exercise power responsibly might be part of the response.

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

[Mona]

[Bostonian]

How is Kerry funding this, er, research?

Is he using DNC money for it?

[kman]

Dear Mr. Kerry:

Rather than smearing your accusers further, why not just sign SF-180 and release the records? Your campaign claims you have already released all records, so what could be hurt by signing the form?

Kurt

[Nomorelies]

The ACLU actually fought for Rush Limbaugh's civil rights regarding his medical records. Strange bedfellows? I don't imagine that warmed ole Rushbo over to their side even then. The ACLU, in principle, is a good thing. They just rushed so hard to the left that they fell over a cliff and self-destructed.
_________________
Nomorelies Make a donation HERE

[jataylor11]

My thoughts of this bring to mind the alleged Nixon enemies lists.

If a national party campaign has used the substantial wealth of its supporters to investigate the lives of 250 honorable veterans and in turn releases information gathered from this "mud" hunt (I don't doubt for a minute that this has actually happened) in order to divert attention from this group's statements about that party's candidate I doubt the success of this strategy.

First, it does not matter what the ABB voters think, they aren't thinking. Their vitriolic hatred of Bush keeps them from even listening to anything about their candidate with an objective ear. They aren't listening, they aren't hearing, they are blinded my their meaningless, unfounded hatred for Bush. The Swift Vets have demonstrated more honor in one atom of their beings than this entire group collectively.

Second, the group that support the Swift Vets will judge it for what it is --- an attempt to divert from the truth and will think nothing of these attacks. They won't even listen for a minute, or will say so what. We all have skeltons, mistakes, bad moves and this leaves the third group.

This is the very small group of the undecided. Those who are confused, uncertain, and trying to make up their minds on who to believe. This is the group that is still trying to listen, still trying to make up their mind, still trying to find that one point or event on which they can base their decision. These people, as does any human walking the earth, have regrets, embarassments or mistakes in their pasts that they would prefer to keep secret, hidden, buried. These people will look at attacks and think about how they would feel if someone did this too them. They will attribute the mud throwing to Kerry. They will not feel "secure" in a candidate who does this. If they were inclined to vote for Kerry, or looking for a reason to vote for Kerry they will stay home because this tactic will make them uneasy.

If they were truly undecided but trying to find that one event to help them make up their mind --- the fear of this happening to them will mean more than anything else. Fear of a candidate does not create support. And this would be a "personal" fear. The first group's "fear" of Bush is not personal. The fear a potential investigation into their own lives by a POTUS Kerry (shudder) is very personal --- and will motivate them to keep it from happening. People may dislike President Bush, they may fear him --- but I have never heard anyone say they feared President Bush investigating their backgrounds to use against them.

Again, this makes Kerry very scary.

THIS WILL BACKFIRE ON KERRY IN THE WORST STINKIEST WAY --- YOU CAN'T THROW MUD WITHOUT GETTING SOME ON YOU.

[rua]

The worst the ACLU can do is tell you 'no', it's worth a try. Secondly, if they do start slinging the mud, and every liberal media form out there jumps on it, people who haven't made up their mind who they're going to vote for will start looking at this site and others trying to figure out what it is Kerry and company is trying to cover up, you'll see more of those $300k days again, remember what happened when Chris Matthews went off the deep end. The Democratic part/liberal media is your best fundraiser right now. Let them cry like babies all they want, it's only helping you.

Let them sling the mud, it all washes out anyway. I think maybe they're worried about that alleged videotape that shows Kerry burning villages and and are going to try to bury that with dirty tricks. Which do you think will get more attention in the end...the video tape, if it exists, it will be devastating to Kerry and his campaign. The tape of him admitting he committed war crimes will ultimately be his undoing in this new day of electronic media. It's going to be hard to bury. Even tougher to ignore.

Hold your course, ignore what the media is trying to do, and you're going to triumph in the end.