[iwar] [fc:Is.America.Becoming.a.Police.State?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-07-16 21:32:33
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Cybersecurity-Research.Bill.Stalls.in.Senate]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:US.DoD.Seeks.Radical.Information.Network]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200207170432.g6H4WX412011@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Is.America.Becoming.a.Police.State?]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

=====================================
    Date: July 15, 2002
Subject: #452 - Is America Becoming a Police State?
=====================================
Discussion Thread - Comment #s -

URLs for Past Comments are Archived at 2 Locations:
   - Defense &amp; National Interest Website: http://www.d-n-i.net/
   - Chronological Archive: http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/

Attached References:

[1] Christopher Edley Jr., "A U.S. Watchdog For Civil Liberties," The
Washington Post Outlook, July 14, 2002; Page B07.

[2] By Ritt Goldstein, "US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as
citizen spies," The Sydney Morning Herald., July 15 2002.
 
=======================================
In Reference 1, Christopher Edley, a law professor at Harvard, calls for
the establishment of an Office of Rights and Liberties within the new
Department of Homeland Security. Why would Mr. Edley want to add another
layer of bureaucracy to the spreading ink blot of a new internal security
bureaucracy?

Edley fears the powers being concentrated in the Department of Homeland
Security could be abused and threaten civil liberties, particularly in a
time of war - he believes there are three risks: First, courts and
judges will accommodate themselves to the requirements of national
security, as they did when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, when Wilson
pushed for the sedition trials during WWI, or when Roosevelt interned
Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps during WWII.  Once
again, officials and judges may be tempted to draw a line in a place we
come to regret.  Second, you can forget about Congressional oversight,
Edley believes a war fever has created an overly deferential bi-partisan
consensus in Congress.  Third, the secrecy needed to fight the war on
terrorism will suppress public debate by keeping information about the
government's domestic activities from the public. 

Therefore, Edley concludes, we need more government to protect us from
an expansion of government power.  Maybe Edley is right.  If the report
by Rit Goldstein in the Sydney Morning Herald is correct - hopefully a
big "IF" [Ref 2], the potential for abuse by the increased powers being
assigned to the Executive Branch by Congress or being assumed by the
Executive Branch for raison d'etat is accelerating non-linearly. 

Goldstein reports on a Department of Justice project called Terrorism
Information and Prevention System, or TIPS - a voluntary survellance
program that would recruit volunteers to report suspicious activities. 
Goldstein says these volunteers would be recruited primarily from
occupations which provide routine access to homes, businesses or
transport systems, such as letter carriers, utility employees, truck
drivers and train conductors.  (What about children spying on their
parents?) He says the goal is to recruit at least four percent of the
population - that would be a higher percentage than was employed by the
highly effective East German secret police forcer (STASI) during the
height of the Cold War.  The government web site for TIPS looks a lot
less threatening, of course -- it can be found at the following URL: <a
href="http://www.citizencorps.gov">http://www.citizencorps.gov>www.citizencorps.gov/tips.html


On the other hand, maybe the solution to our problems is not a
panic-stricken assault on civil liberties.  Maybe a hydra-like solution
that creates more government "war" power capped by more layers of
oversight bureaucracy to control that war power will create more
problems than it solves.  Maybe it is time to think about a return to
the basic ideas of America enshrined in the Bill of Rights. 

On June 27, 2002, Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian and advocate of
less government, gave a disturbingly thoughtful speech to the House of
Representatives.  about these "maybes." He asked a simple question: Is
America doomed to become a police state? You may not agree with
everything -- or anything -- he says, but his long speech is closely
reasoned, dispassionate, and it raises issues that affect every
American.  It is well worth pondering, especially if you disagree with
his libertarian assumptions. 

I urge you to read it carefully.  It follows without further comment. 
-------[Speech by Hon.  Ron Paul]------------
 Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?

by Rep.  Ron Paul, MD (R-TX)

U.S.  House of Representatives, June 27, 2002

Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. 
Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress
ought to do about them. 

Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with
political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11
tragedy.  Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never
considered. 

I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our
post-World War II foreign policy.  I have perceived it to be not in our
best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to
our security. 

For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:

Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as
bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a
system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our
arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. 
This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a
greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims
can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in
terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is
difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us
that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but
instead is a threat to our liberties. 

Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in
January 2000.  Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been
borne out. 

I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then.  We
should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our
problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home. 

So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at
home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up
empty-handed.  The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place,
the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of
them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan.  Our efforts to find our
enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries.  The question that
we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we
make new ones.  So far it appears we are losing. 

As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the
terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used.  The big one
will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war
against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America
from the Muslim world. 

But, Mr.  Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police
state.  I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in
the negative.  Most would associate military patrols, martial law and
summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present
in our everyday activities.  However, those with knowledge of Ruby
Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different
opinion. 

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most
militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying
disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by
levying fines and imprisonment.  The military is more often used in the
transition phase to a totalitarian state.  Maintenance for long periods
is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial
transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent.  Peaceful
control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on
our street corners. 

Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience,
especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a
free people.  The changes, they are assured, will be minimal,
short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a
declared war.  Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once
the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. 
For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to
normalcy is never complete.  In an undeclared war, without a precise
enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove
illusory. 

We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while
at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. 
The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living
in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we
are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that
direction. 

Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic
process with majority support.  During a crisis, the rights of
individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more
likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military
coup.  Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or
lost freedom.  When people face terrorism or great fear - from whatever
source - the tendency to demand economic and physical security over
liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible.  The masses are easily
led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and
demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. 

Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical
security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the
loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late.  Reversing the
trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very
difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering.  Although
dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end,
millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in
the decades prior to 1989. 

But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police
state, where are we and where are we going?

Let me make a few observations:

Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do
and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. 

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. 
We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times,
dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports
and throughout the Capitol.  The people are totally disarmed, except for
the police and the criminals.  But worse yet, surveillance cameras in
Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. 

The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who
have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us
"for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our
kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government
building or park.  There's not much evidence of an open society in
Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain - anything goes if it's
for government-provided safety and security. 

If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands
of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the
big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the
enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear.  The personal
information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than
safety - including political reasons.  Like gun control, people control
hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. 

Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities.  The
numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for
everything in between.  This allows government record keeping of
monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal
others' identities for criminal purposes.  This invasion of privacy has
been compounded by the technology now available to those in government
who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others.  Loss of
personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11. 

Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. 
Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the
monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal
bureaucracy.  Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are
moving inexorably in that direction. 

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper
permits from the federal government.  Transactions involving guns, food,
medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct
speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and
acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval
and strict regulation from our federal government.  If this is not done
properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even
imprisonment are likely consequences. 

Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently
argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are
the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by
explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down.  This same argument is
used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes. 

Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts,
bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits - or a
policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting
a gun for sure. 

The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because
they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their
state - dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first
place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal
government. 

Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line
and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of
regulations that no one can possibly understand.  We don't see the guns,
but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City
Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."

All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared
war.  If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this
congressional mandate.  "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th
Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of
draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS -
especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal
government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers.  Fear is
the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by
making examples of celebrities.  Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know
how this process works. 

Economic threats against business establishments are notorious.  Rules
and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. 
terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept
their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent.  Of course, it
turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. 
This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly
establishes just who is in charge. 

Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or
break a company within minutes.  If information is leaked, even
inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in
revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. 
Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States,
violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties.  Just
look at the O.J.  Simpson case as an example. 

Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime
are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while
sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are
tragically useless.  If business people are found guilty of even the
suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even
imprisonment are likely consequences. 

Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market.  Under today's
laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily
construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof
that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices
or was detrimental to consumers. 

Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious
problems if a high-profile person can be made an example. 

One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the
control of speech through politically correct legislation.  Derogatory
remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and
the destruction of political careers.  The movement toward designating
penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the
nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the
airways and byways.  Establishing relative rights and special penalties
for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend. 

All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without
warrants and without probable cause.  Tax collection, drug usage, and
possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of
information on all Americans. 

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the
National Medical Data Bank.  For efficiency reasons, it is said, the
government keeps our medical records for our benefit.  This, of course,
is done with vague and useless promises that this information will
always remain confidential - just like all the FBI information in the
past!

Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the
United States.  Ruthless and abusive use of all this information
accumulated by the government is yet to come.  The Patriot Act has given
unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions
without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably
cause.  "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more
frequent every day.  What have we allowed to happen to the 4th
amendment?

It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by
the encroachment of the police state.  I'm sure our citizens are more
tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been
deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and
helpful - and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. 
However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation
we're passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that
soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased.  This
attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the
authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse. 

What government gives with one hand - as it attempts to provide safety
and security - it must, at the same time, take away with two others. 
When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of
our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than
promised, it may be too late. 

I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of
Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made
safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever.  I grant you this is a
reasonable request. 

The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it.  We
must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen
is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon.  We
must come to understand the real reason is that there's a difference
between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. 
And believe me, we're not the target because we're "free and
prosperous". 

The argument made for more government controls here at home and
expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this:
"If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom
have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical
and economic security, with continued abundance, then we'll talk about
freedom. 

It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a
voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would lay
off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense.  We're looking for a
Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our
area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that
argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be motivating
us here in the Congress. 

That's not the way it works.  Freedom does not preclude security. 
Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail
to provide the safety we all want. 

The Congress would never agree that we are a police state.  Most
members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise.  But we are all obligated to
decide in which direction we are going.  If we're moving toward a system
that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about
a police state should be reduced or totally ignored.  Yet, if, by
chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for
us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we
should not ignore the dangers.  If current policies are permitting a
serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great
abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations. 

That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial
to the survival of those institutions that made America great.  We now
are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma -
the new Department of Homeland Security - and we must decide if it truly
serves the interests of America. 

Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone
bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility of all of us
to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations
about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of
what is to come. 

In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is
usual and the effects are instantaneous.  Discovering the error of our
ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time
and careful analysis.  Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and
fraught with danger.  People would much prefer to hear platitudes than
the pessimism of a flawed policy. 

Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to
crafting a proper response.  I know of no one who does not condemn the
attacks of 9/11.  Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of
action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours.  If not,
we're not a free society. 

Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep
philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form
of aggression to bring about social or economic changes. 

But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet
to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism. 

Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be
good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the
administration.  We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military
tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war,
and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum
required to save our country from the threat of terrorism. 

Who's winning this war anyway?

To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional
rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear.  The
episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb
being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual
threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government
officials. 

To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our
Attorney General was in Moscow.  Maybe if our FBI spent more time at
home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now -
discredited organization.  Our FBI should be gathering information here
at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return.  We don't
need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence
apparatus of the CIA or the military. 

I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al
Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented
goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves
could never do to us by force. 

So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more
intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to
pursue much more military adventurism abroad.  These pursuits are
overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the
so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number
of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates. 

The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy
accept this massive increase in government power is clear.  They, for
various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The
several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We're
rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are
jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause.  They
despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why
they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one
must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why
they attacked us. 

The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:

-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial
reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries. 

-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational
being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates
their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their
holy land.  We refuse to consider how we might feel if China's navy
occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting "their oil"
and had air bases on U.S.  territory. 

-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war
going on in the Middle East. 

What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we
believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to
change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may
one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of
those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms
are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic
problems worse.  The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be
exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the
compromises placed on our liberties. 

Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually
based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less prosperous" -
those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks.  I'm
convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of
last year and challenge the explanations given us. 

 

The question that one day must be answered is this:

What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved
ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion.  Would it
have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?

If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize
that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the
leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities.  If they speak the
truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign
military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire
would make a lot of sense.  It could reduce tensions, save money,
preserve liberty and preserve our economic system. 

This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather
is an argument I've made for decades, claiming that meddling in the
affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our
ability to defend ourselves. 

This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the
attacks and dealing with them accordingly - something that we seem to
have not yet done.  We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in
achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the
attacks on 9/11.  Rather than pursuing war against countries that were
not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the
judicious use of Marque and Reprisal. 

I'm sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will
prove elusive.  Financial interests of our international corporations,
oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex,
are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies. 

Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from
foreign militarism - like bringing our troops home - would now be
construed as yielding to the terrorists.  It just won't happen.  This is
a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating
is legitimate. 

Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only
makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn't we demand the courage and wisdom of
our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political
shortcomings?

President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from
a much more powerful force.  The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with
nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by
Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet
border.  Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled
the nuclear standoff with the Soviets.  This concession most likely
prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a
failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial.  The answer
is to do it diplomatically - that's what diplomats are supposed to do. 

Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide
imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or
the domestic violations of our civil liberties.  Today's conditions may
well be exactly what our world commercial interests want.  It's now easy
for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or
wherever in pursuit of terrorists.  No questions are asked by the media
or the politicians - only cheers.  Put in these terms, who can object?
We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the
response is not to be questioned!

A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face
comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad
guys envy our freedoms and prosperity.  How many terrorist attacks have
been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too
are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic
fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so. 

There's no purpose in targeting us unless there's a political agenda,
which there surely is.  To deny that this political agenda exists
jeopardizes the security of this country.  Pretending something to be
true that is not is dangerous. 

It's a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion
annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. 
Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes.  That's good,
unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the
past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the
bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their
efficiency or changing their goals.  Unfortunately that is what is
likely to happen. 

One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that
the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the
government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS.  And they failed.  A
greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is
what was needed.  Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented
most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day. 

But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the
right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners
and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked. 

Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless
hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors,
mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing
nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are
on designated watch lists. 

We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings
about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no
one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is.  We think we know where
Saddam Hussein lives, so let's go get him instead. 

Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead
of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private
property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those
rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile. 

If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the
politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those
individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all
we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new
federal department - the Department of Homeland Security. 

According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this
big-government approach, and if we don't jolly well like it, we will be
tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for
something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next
attack.  If it's not a real attack, then it's a theoretical one; one
where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist. 

Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more
secure society? I think not.  All the discussions of these proposed
plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to
accept major changes in our political system.  Some of the changes being
made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of
life. 

There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and
freedom.  Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. 
Preserving and better understanding freedom can.  Sadly today, many are
anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears.. 

The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign
government should alarm all Americans.  If we do not resist this power
the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can
start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any
reason, without congressional approval.  This is a tragic usurpation of
the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with
Congress being all too accommodating. 

Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done
through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being
casually sacrificed on the altar of security.  In a free society, and
certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should
never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to
wage war whenever he pleases. 

The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our
national security draws nary a whimper from Congress.  Support is
overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality,
constitutionality, or its practicality.  Murdering Saddam Hussein will
surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to
suicide terrorist attacks against us. 

Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent
assassination of our president.  Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the
sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not
diminish it.  It makes no sense.  But our warriors argue that someday he
may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some
yet-unknown target.  This policy further radicalizes the Islamic
fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is
driven by Israeli, not U.S.  security interests. 

Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any
threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as
we're king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will
naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with
their neighbors.  India can justify a first strike against Pakistan,
China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. 
This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe. 

This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to
do, especially when we're dealing with a subjective interpretation of
plans buried in someone's head.  To those who suggest a more restrained
approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort,
saying: "Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday
directly harmful to the United States." Since no one can prove this, the
warmongers shout: "Let's march on Baghdad."

We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that
providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on
Congress' shoulders.  But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that
threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the
more prudent thing to do. 

Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of
legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933.  Where Roosevelt
dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's legislation
deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any
cost - dollar or freedom-wise.  These efforts include:

-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the
establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism. 

- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government's
surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens
through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to
impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been
sought after for years. 

-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after
9/11. 

- The federalization of all airline security employees. 

-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of
those accused - rights established as far back in history as 1215. 

- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when
a crime has not been committed - a serious precedent that one day may
well be abused. 

- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity. 

- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious
diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations. 

Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in
a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190
billion farm bill as well as fast track. 

Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the
Congress.  Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is
now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and
expand. 

There's no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both
domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of
the federal government, will slow any time soon.  The deficit is
exploding as the economy weakens.  When the government sector drains the
resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of
confidence needed for growth. 

Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion
of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge
new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping
miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive
and worthwhile. 

There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge
funding can solve our nation's problems.  The likelihood is that the
unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms
and do nothing to enhance our security. 

Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not
mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security.  The truth
is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face,
without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the
expense of liberty. 

As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing
crimes.  On occasion, with luck it might succeed.  But the failure to
tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on
intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one.  Governments, by
nature, are very inefficient institutions.  We must accept this as fact. 

I'm sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to
head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the
information from being useful.  But, the basic principle is wrong.  City
policeman can't and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. 
That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of
every law-abiding citizen. 

But that's exactly what our recent legislation is doing.  It's a
wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound.  The policemen
in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant.  In
the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe
and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. 
They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn't entice the
burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door
waiting to be used.  But this is a right denied many of our citizens
living in the inner cities. 

The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous.  To prevent
crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy
on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child
abuse, or tax evasion.  They would need cameras, not only on our streets
and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be
constantly monitored - just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug
dealer, or tax evader. 

This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing
privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the
safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. 
But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit.  I am certain that
this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules
that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past
nine months. 

This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership
and responsibility of the owners to protect that property.  But the
right to bear arms must also be included.  The fact that the
administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the
airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection
mean that we're just digging a bigger hole for ourselves - ignoring
liberty and expecting the government to provide something it's not
capable of doing. 

Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates
more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek
vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's efforts so far sadly
have only made us more vulnerable.  I'm convinced that the newly
proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more
secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free.  If the
trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the
vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some
future administration than any of us dreams.  Let's pray that this
concern will never materialize. 

America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state.  But our
concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more
docile police state.  The love of liberty has been so diminished that we
tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been
abhorred just a few years ago.  Tolerance of inconvenience to our
liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. 
The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system
of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of
running other people's lives. 

Mr.  Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a
Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast
approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections
against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined.  The
post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to
concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize
that we cannot have one without the other. 

When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we
either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for
not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. 
Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. 
Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed
that of violent crimes (just look at what's coming under the new FEC
law).  War will be the prerogative of the administration.  Civil
liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not
be carried out by an independent judiciary.  In a police state, this
becomes common practice rather than a rare incident. 

Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't
have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with.  So forget it and
use your energy for your own survival.  Some advise that the momentum
towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed.  Possibly that's true,
but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate
to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of
statism can be reversed. 

To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to
establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society.  That
does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force.  It does
not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of
the people.  It does not allow us to police the world by involving
ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a
world American empire. 

But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free
markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing
private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these
rules - whether foreign or domestic. 

In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty -
the people do the rest.  Let's not give up on a grand experiment that
has provided so much for so many.  Let's reject the police state. 

Dr.  Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
-------[End of Speech by Hon.  Ron Paul]------------

Chuck Spinney Archives of past commentaries or reports can be found at
Defense &amp; National Interest Website: <a
href="http://www.d-n-i.net/">http://www.d-n-i.net/> or Infowar at <a
href="http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/">http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/>

[Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C.  107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.] ------------------[Reference
1]--------------------

A U.S.  Watchdog For Civil Liberties

By Christopher Edley Jr.  The Washington Post Outlook Sunday, July 14,
2002; Page B07

It is becoming increasingly clear that while reorganizing and mobilizing
for homeland security, we also need to construct a practical means of
addressing wartime threats to civil liberties and civil rights. 

The line-drawing between security and liberties carries three distinct
risks:Officials and judges may draw a line in a place we come to regret. 
Or they may not fully disclose where they have drawn it.  Or, finally,
wherever the line is drawn, government agents may violate it, without
our having much of a chance to detect, correct and punish the abuses. 
There are things Congress can do now to address these risks of failure
to disclose and comply. 

Executive abuses during Watergate, Vietnam, the internment of Japanese
Americans and the World War I sedition trials seem ancient history to
many.  Yet in the long winter since 9/11, we have seen the indefinite
detention of unnamed illegal immigrants from Islamic nations at
undisclosed locations and for undeclared reasons.  We've seen confusion
and controversy about access to counsel, about secret hearings and about
relaxing the predicates of evidence or suspicion required to search and
surveil.  Impassioned accusations of racial profiling are met with
vehement denials.  And we are preparing for unseen military tribunals. 

What of liberty's familiar safeguards?

First, don't count on the courts.  As Chief Justice William Rehnquist
warned in his prescient 1998 book, wartime courts strain to accommodate
security imperatives declared by the political branches.  Unlike the
Civil War or 20th century conflicts, however, finality for today's
mobilization will be elusive, so our liberties will be compromised for
who knows how long.  To many judges, that distinction may not make a
difference. 

Second, discount the congressional watchdogs for now.  Bipartisan
consensus, plus the volume of concerns, means that oversight will be
both overwhelmed and deferential. 

Finally, don't count on political pressure.  A watchful public will not
protest, because the war will be mostly secret, mostly for good reason. 
Without transparency, public debate will be ill informed or nonexistent. 

What to do? Within the new agency of homeland security, Congress should
create an independent Office of Rights and Liberties, headed by a
Senate-confirmed director.  This director should have the powers of a
super-inspector general, but focused solely on monitoring compliance
with civil liberties and civil rights norms in the government-wide war. 
With capable career professionals having the necessary security
clearances and expertise, this office should have the power to subpoena
documents, interview witnesses under penalty of perjury and aggressively
audit both policymakers and foot soldiers.  It should receive and
address public complaints.  It should make a classified quarterly report
to Congress and the president, and an unclassified version for the
public, along with mandatory official responses from the affected
security agencies. 

This office should have power to seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas,
independent of the Justice Department, which it would occasionally
investigate.  It should have power to impose civil administrative fines
on individuals for violations of statutes or regulations intended to
safeguard civil liberties, with such fines appealable to a federal
court, in secret if necessary.  (Separately, Congress should strengthen
criminal laws covering intentional deprivation of liberties.)

Finally, the Office of Rights and Liberties should have a part-time,
bipartisan advisory board designed to build public confidence in its
operations and in the general conduct of the war.  It would, by the way,
be constitutionally permissible for appointments to that board to be
shared by the president, the House and the Senate, as the board would
have no executive or legislative powers. 

This bears emphasis: The Office of Rights and Liberties would not be
responsible for deciding where to draw the line between our need for
security and our commitments to liberty.  That's another debate.  The
office would not, for example, have a role in deciding whether INS
detainees should have access to counsel, when prisoners should be
transferred from civil to military jurisdiction or when to plant bugs in
mosques.  Instead, its role would be to ensure that when our
war-fighters do draw a line, the public knows where it is: No secret
policies.  (I can imagine rare exceptions, but at least the office would
notify Congress.) Its further duty would be to exercise the diligence
and independence to assure us that, from top to bottom, those waging the
war know where the line is and obey: compliance without coverups. 

Congress must secure things even more fundamental than our borders and
power plants.  Our religious practices and bank records, our color and
our language, our political opinions and our travel habits -- the
triggers for suspicion and the investigatory reach in this war are too
sweeping to comprehend.  Over time, the tension between security and
liberty will create corrosive doubts about the war's home-front
legitimacy.  This is because, even more than in conventional
crime-fighting, we cynically see a political agenda behind every move,
and many moves are altogether secret.  Can we not reach an agreement to
prevent abuses and promote legitimacy? An agreement to trust our
war-fighters, but verify? The writer is a law professor at Harvard and a
member of the U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights. 
------------------[Reference 2]--------------------
 US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies

By Ritt Goldstein The Sydney Morning Herald.  July 15 2002
 
The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States
citizens as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil
liberties groups. 

The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US
will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East
Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police.  The program would use
a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity". 

Civil liberties groups have already warned that, with the passage
earlier this year of the Patriot Act, there is potential for abusive,
large-scale investigations of US citizens. 

As with the Patriot Act, TIPS is being pursued as part of the so-called
war against terrorism.  It is a Department of Justice project. 

Highlighting the scope of the surveillance network, TIPS volunteers are
being recruited primarily from among those whose work provides access to
homes, businesses or transport systems.  Letter carriers, utility
employees, truck drivers and train conductors are among those named as
targeted recruits. 

A pilot program, described on the government Web site <a
href="http://www.citizencorps.gov">http://www.citizencorps.gov>www.citizencorps.gov
, is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities, with 1 million
informants participating in the first stage.  Assuming the program is
initiated in the 10 largest US cities, that will be 1 million informants
for a total population of almost 24 million, or one in 24 people. 

Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic
states.  According to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on
Justice, the accuracy of informant reports is problematic, with some
informants having embellished the truth, and others suspected of having
fabricated their reports. 

Present Justice Department procedures mean that informant reports will
enter databases for future reference and/or action.  The information
will then be broadly available within the department, related agencies
and local police forces.  The targeted individual will remain unaware of
the existence of the report and of its contents. 

The Patriot Act already provides for a person's home to be searched
without that person being informed that a search was ever performed, or
of any surveillance devices that were implanted. 

At state and local levels the TIPS program will be co-ordinated by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was given sweeping new
powers, including internment, as part of the Reagan Administration's
national security initiatives.  Many key figures of the Reagan era are
part of the Bush Administration. 

The creation of a US "shadow government", operating in secret, was
another Reagan national security initiative. 

Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in the
movement for US law enforcement accountability.  He has lived in Sweden
since 1997, seeking political asylum there, saying he was the victim of
life-threatening assaults in retaliation for his accountability efforts. 
His application has been supported by the European Parliament, five of
Sweden's seven big political parties, clergy, and Amnesty and other
rights groups. 
 
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141232.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save on REALTOR Fees
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Cybersecurity-Research.Bill.Stalls.in.Senate]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:US.DoD.Seeks.Radical.Information.Network]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:31 PDT