"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
A police state unquestionably exists when:
1. Federal executive and legislative powers make domestic spying on US citizens legal
2. Federal and state political and police mechanisms:
* Steal elections
* Shut down media coverage after they steal an election
* Serve the central government instead of serving the citizens
* Enforce the policies of the central government instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds
* Spy on and intimidate citizens
All these conditions now exist in the United States!
In a free society:
*Police agencies respond only to evidence of planned and actual criminal activity.
*Police officers keep the peace; they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate.
*Police do not investigate citizens' attitudes toward the central government, only their action.
*Citizen dissent is lawful and police agencies do not investigate citizens' attitudes toward the criminal justice apparatus.
Those conditions no longer exist in the United States!
Under the former 1989 Guidelines, the FBI first had to obtain evidence suggesting some kind of criminal activity before its agents could begin
investigating. Under the FBI's new May 30, 2002 revised Guidelines, FBI agents are authorized to carry out "general topical research" and retain
files on this research. Specifically, agents may conduct "online searches" and visit "online sites and forums as part of such research."
The new Guidelines warn against searching "for information by individuals' names or other individual identifiers," but it's okay to search by
names to locate "names of authors who write on the topic" that the agent is researching. Of course every citizen of the United States is a possible
"author" of e-mail messages on a variety of subjects, so all U.S. citizens are potential "terrorism suspects" under these new guidelines.
The new Guidelines now encourage the FBI to snoop around looking for people who might be suspicious, creating files on anyone who catches their fancy.
Agents can now investigate people, organizations, websites, chat rooms and forums for any reason or for no reason at all. They can enter your home
without a warrant and are not required to inform you that they have invaded your home if you are not present.
All the records they create in their investigations will be placed in national databases available to all agencies now under the new "Homeland
Security" umbrella. Never in U.S. history has there been such a monolithic surveillance mechanism with the terrible power to destroy American
citizens' lives.
The 1989 and the new 2002 Guidelines expressly state that the FBI must not launch investigations "based solely on [citizens'] activities protected
by the First Amendment or on the lawful exercise of any other [federal or Constitutional] rights." Do you see your local FBI agent as having a clear
enough understanding of constitutional rights to keep him from investigating people whom he identifies as having "terrorist proclivities?"
Big Brother is watching you
Scores of U.S. cities are now using surveillance television camera systems to spy on citizens--shades of 1984. With video cameras perched atop
buildings and poles, watching whatever American are doing, do you suppose there might be some potential for abuse in such systems? Christian
Parenti's, article, "DC's Virtual Panopticon," in the June 3, 2002 issue of The Nation describes how "police in Detroit and DC have used CCTV
[closed-circuit television] to stalk personal foes, political opponents and young women." Smile, you're on Kandid Kamera.
To justify its expanding obliteration of constitutional liberties, the Bush administration uses the most insane brand of logic--which should outrage
American citizens:
* Why did the intelligence agencies fail to detect or prevent 9/11? Because they didn't have enough money. So we'll give them billions more.
* Why is the F.B.I. still failing in its fight against terrorism? Because the rights of American citizens are preventing the agency from carrying out
its job. So we'll set up new Guidelines and take away more constitutional rights of citizens.
* Why is it unnecessary for the Bush administration to provide records to Congress concerning Enron or prior knowledge of possible terrorist attacks?
Because we're in a state of war and the executive branch must not be hamstrung by witchhunts or frivolous investigations.
The U.S. Government Spying on and Lying to Its Citizens.
We know that the beginning stages of a police state exist in the United States when:
* a leader is brought into power through illegal means
* a national catastrophe is used as the pretext to begin a war and institute extraordinary restrictions on constitutional liberties
* citizen dissent is held to be treasonous
* the constitutional separation of powers is abrogated by a power-mad executive branch which controls or intimidates the other two branches of
government
The US Patriot Act was enacted by a Congress that had not actually read it. The only thing representatives and senators got was a two or three
page compendium from the White House press office. Nobody was actually given the time to read the provisions of the act. The White House intimidated
members of Congress into passing the bill by telling them that if they refused to sign it, they'd be labeled as "unpatriotic"--something almost all
members of Congress were frightened of at the time.
Lieberman, Daschle and Gephardt later wrote a memorandum stating that Congress had effectively given the Bush Administration "near dictatorial
powers."
A Militarist Police State
The signs are unmistakable; the Bush regime is waging a "war against dissent," rapidly moving the United States to a total police state.
American citizens had assumed that the Patriot Act and the FBI Guidelines assured that only foreign aliens could be placed in military detention
centers, unprotected by the U.S. constitution. But on June 10, 2002, an American citizen was declared by Bush, without due process, to be an "enemy
combatant" and to have no constitutional protections. This American citizen was thrown into a naval brig in South Carolina.
Of course, Abdullah al Muhajir, a U.S. citizen also known as Jose Padilla, has been branded a "known terrorist" with ties to al Qaeda, so
almost no one is speaking out against this abrogation of constitutional procedures. A reputed "terrorist" who is said to have been building a
"dirty bomb," Padilla, a New York-born man of Puerto Rican descent, is assumed to be beyond the pale, not worthy of judicial prerogatives. But what
happens when Bush or the FBI brands you as a "terrorist" because you appear to be a dissenter, denying you your constitutional rights as a U.S.
citizen?
Attorney General Ashcroft explicitly stated that terrorists do not deserve constitutional protections. all they deserve are "courts" of
conviction, not justice. Unfortunately, in this creeping police state, who does and doesn't receive justice is determined by Bush and his underlings.
(continued next post)