Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #26458

Subject: "Police State: ARMORED TANKS sent on LA anti-war protest" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 12:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"Police State: ARMORED TANKS sent on LA anti-war protest"


  

          

(quicktime 6.8 mb)

source: http://www.la.indymedia.org/

TANKS APPEAR AT ANTI-WAR PROTEST IN WESTWOOD
.
LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM armored tanks showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood.

The tanks circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered.

Enraged, some of the people attempted to block the tanks, but police quickly cleared the street.

The people continued to protest the presence of the tanks, but after about ten minutes the tanks drove off. It is unclear as to why the tanks were deployed to this location.


_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

enter the

International Presents-

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann W. von Goethe

so i jumped on the bandwagon,

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Police State: ARMORED TANKS sent on LA anti-war pro
Nov 10th 2004
1
thats fucked up
Nov 10th 2004
2
shiiiiiiit
Nov 10th 2004
3
Sound advice from Thomas Jefferson:
Nov 10th 2004
4
whoa that's always ill when people speak so
Nov 10th 2004
5
RE: Sound advice from Thomas Jefferson:
Jan 11th 2005
22
?
Jan 11th 2005
24
Seriously
Nov 10th 2004
6
It's going to get MUCH worse.
Nov 11th 2004
7
where's foxnesn
Nov 11th 2004
8
Please note
Nov 11th 2004
9
This seems plausible to me
Nov 11th 2004
10
      it would be a mistake to assume...
Nov 11th 2004
11
      Urban combat training
Nov 11th 2004
13
      Good point...
Nov 12th 2004
16
      If you read the rest of "Steve's" posts
Nov 11th 2004
12
The LAPD has been militarized, though...
Nov 11th 2004
14
word...
Nov 11th 2004
15
Waco: Rules of Engagement
Nov 17th 2004
17
Congressman Ron Paul to Congress: Is America a police state?
Dec 15th 2004
18
RE: Congressman Ron Paul to Congress: Is America a police state?
Jan 12th 2005
32
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops
Jan 11th 2005
19
errr...and this is wrong how?
Jan 11th 2005
20
      you are a bitter little man, aren't you?
Jan 11th 2005
21
           this is what happens when u have no life..
Jan 11th 2005
23
                you have no reading skills
Jan 11th 2005
27
                     comedy...
Jan 11th 2005
30
                          did you know that...
Jan 12th 2005
33
i see how it is
Jan 11th 2005
25
where do you get off being so judgmental?
Jan 11th 2005
26
pot calling the kettle black
Jan 11th 2005
28
The National Guard office is close to the Fed Bldg
Jan 11th 2005
29
This shit is a trip
Jan 12th 2005
31
internal passport provision in Intelligence Reform Act
Jan 13th 2005
34
First they came for the 'terrorists'...
Jan 26th 2005
35
Parents fight school over mandatory RFID on kids
Feb 14th 2005
36

kid
Member since Jul 10th 2002
4436 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 12:50 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "RE: Police State: ARMORED TANKS sent on LA anti-war pro"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I can tell you why they were deployed, but you probably already know.

***********************************
StLOKp's�: DawgEatah, Dstl1, hyde, Colonel Sanders, MisterGrump, Afrotec, Instant_Vintage, ThaTruth, Soul1908, SefConscious, Baldheadslik, YngblkprinceMD, 314confidential, rdiggity, Kid

Honorable mention:auragin_boi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

codewarrior
Charter member
1860 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 02:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
2. "thats fucked up"
In response to Reply # 0


          

n/m

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

rawsouthpaw
Charter member
15473 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 04:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "shiiiiiiit"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

----------------------------

www.summerproleague.com/photo
_gallery.htm


''Ang hindi marunong lumingon
sa pinanggalingan, hindi
makakarating sa
pinaroroonan.'' Those who
cannot see where they came
from will never get to where
they are going.
-Jose Rizal







  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

HoChiGrimm
Charter member
6247 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 06:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Sound advice from Thomas Jefferson:"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

"Those who desire to give
up Freedom in order to gain
Security, will not have, nor
do they deserve, either one."

----------------------------------------------------------

The Rand (Paul or Ayn) philosophy, putting private property rights at
the same level of human rights, equates the status of things with the
status of human beings. If property is considered equal

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
rawsouthpaw
Charter member
15473 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 07:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "whoa that's always ill when people speak so"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

effectively through the centuries

----------------------------

www.summerproleague.com/photo
_gallery.htm


''Ang hindi marunong lumingon
sa pinanggalingan, hindi
makakarating sa
pinaroroonan.'' Those who
cannot see where they came
from will never get to where
they are going.
-Jose Rizal







  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
CornDogg319
Member since Dec 01st 2004
1068 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 09:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
22. "RE: Sound advice from Thomas Jefferson:"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

I'd always heard that attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Not like it matters, it's still true - sad how we in this time don't deserve the idealism and wisdom about human nature/government bequeathed to us by this country's founders. Not saying they lived up to it, either, as we all know from them owning slaves etc., but at least back then our leaders were the ones with the high ideals and the deep philosophical convictions. These days they're just blatantly venal and we act like that's how it should be. I mean, what the hell is wrong with us when we as a country admire to the point of worship an obviously stupid, evil, hypocritical, arrogant asshole? Obviously it's not the okayactivists that are the problem, but for real, what the hell is wrong with this country?

DJ D'OmPeace Presents: 2 Newish Mixtapes. The 1st, The Repimption of Don Goldman, kicks off my TruPimpJamz series. 2nd is When Eagles Cry: Prince For The Brokenhearted Baller. Free d/l, 1st come 1st served:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=N2IPL09A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
foxnesn
Charter member
5240 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 10:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "?"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

i thought ben franklin said that? also, i thought you were a socialist/communist.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Starbaby Jones
Member since Mar 08th 2003
5034 posts
Wed Nov-10-04 08:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
6. "Seriously"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Is anyone surprised by this?

http://soundcloud.com/forestbrooks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Mau777
Charter member
2780 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 04:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "It's going to get MUCH worse."
In response to Reply # 0


          

real soon.

RealTalkInfinite

---
If you release what is within u, what u release will save you. If you do not release what is within u, what u do not release will destroy u.

www.pitchblackgold.bandcamp.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

temps2020
Member since Oct 21st 2003
8780 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 06:27 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
8. "where's foxnesn"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

why were the tanks there huh? we live a police state muhfucker.

"Why is Bush actin' like he tryin' to get Osama? Why we ain't impeach him and elect Obama? -- Common, Why Remix

Badgers Football in '04!

"Relaxed like Dru Down's hair" --Common

"Who the f**k said that? That is some one of those ridiculous things...shit is thicker than blood…you can take all those stupid things and stick them up your ass! Life is about the love of God." --Rick James (R.I.P.)

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

In the IPOD:
1. The Foreign Exchange - Connected
2. Little Brother - Chitlin' Circuit Mixtape
3. Nicolay - City Lights Vol. 1
4. Iomos Marad - Deep Rooted
5. Immortal Technique Vol. 2
6. Masta Ace - A Long Hot Summer
7. Talib Kweli - The Beautiful Struggle
8. Jean Grae - This Week
9. Stevie Wonder - Innervisions
10. Little Brother - The Listening
11. One Man Army - Project Fetus
12. UGK - Ridin' Dirty
13. 9th Wonder - God's Stepson
14. The Roots - The Tipping Point
15. Longshot - Sacrifice
16. De La Soul - The Grind Date

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

abstrak
Charter member
1470 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 12:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "Please note"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

This guy "Steve" appears to be a troll.


http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/118865_comment.php#118896

Follow up on 2 USMC Striker armored vehicles at Westwood Federal Building

I wasn't there at the Tuesday night demonstration in Westwood, but I did do some follow-up investigation this morning about the two armored vehicles.

Turns out the West Los Angeles Veterans Administration was having a Veterans Day parade and celebration this morning (Wednesday). I drove over and walked in to the WLA VA to look around at 10:50am.

Lots of marching middle school ROTC "cadets" (including 11-to-14-year-old boys and girls from Mt. Vernon Middle School all in US Army uniform, some shouldering parade "rifles") and a high school band and antique cars filled with VAFW members. And two USMC Striker armored vehicles complete with 6 or 7 Marines in fatigues and body armor giving junior high ROTC kids and adults tours of the vehicles.

I talked to one Marine with one of the "Striker" vehicles. He told me they had driven the vehicles up from Camp Pendleton the night before (Tuesday) on the freeway. Getting off the 405 Freeway going north, they would have passed Wilshire and Veteran where ANSWER had called a rally to protest the attack on Fallujah in Iraq.

I asked him if he was "rolling around Westwood" Tuesday night. He said, "Yeah, and we drove past that anti-war demonstration. We was lost. We're not from L.A. We didn't know where this place (WLA VA) was. We were trying to find it."

"Did you drive around the block twice?" I asked.

"Yeah, we did. We stopped to ask them (the protestors) directions, but they weren't very nice."

There was more conversation, but that was the gist of it from the Marine side concerning the armored vehicles. For what it's worth.

I've also been receiving emails from friends who were at Tuesday evening's Westwood demostration. They report that the LAPD officers said they had no idea why the two armored vehicles had appeared and then disappeared.

Author: Steve
Link:
Posted: Monday November 08, 2004 08:09 PM






add your comments

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Onederlust
Member since Aug 29th 2003
352 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 12:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "This seems plausible to me"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

The tanks aren't positioned in an offensive manner. They
would not have been so close. I'm no military tactician,
but i don't see why two tanks would pull up along side a
protest, drivers out through the roof, and ask people to disburse.
Those 3 bicycle cops were more effective in containing
those protesters than the 2 armored tanks were.

It doesn't make sense. Though, I did find it odd that military
units, (especially those as slow moving and damaging to the road as tank tracks)
would be able to drive on public highways...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 01:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "it would be a mistake to assume..."
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

... the only reason why tanks would show up is for offensive purposes. if the above story isn't true, then the most probable motive would be psychological intimidation. the US military has been conducting urban warfare exercise in many cities through out the south, and the city of san antonio had to fight off an effort by the military to conduct publicly unannounced "urban warfare" exercises in one of its impoverished sectors. there is a clear mandate for undermining posse commatatus, and its not inconceivable to assume this tank incident would be in line with that agenda

on another note, the explanation by the steve guy seems pretty dumb. these guys are NOT casual tourists... and they undoubtedly would not just "stray" off course. plus, i'm sure they have all sorts of communication equipment in their tanks that would allow them to get accurate coordinates. it just seems like a stretch, in all honesty
_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

enter the

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

so i jumped on the bandwagon:

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
abstrak
Charter member
1470 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 01:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "Urban combat training"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

The troops that came to my city (Shreveport) to train came from a base that already had some of the best urban combat training facilities in the country. They came and set up "surveillance" in several neighborhoods here, and they've done so in something like 150 cities across the country.

The only way we found out about it, was that on the last day of exercises, a soldier got killed trying to "commandeer" a civillian vehicle in exercises in another state. The local paper finally reported that this had been going on here, but only after the last day and only in its print editions.

I think they're not looking for something that "simulates" the battlefield of tomorrow, because they already have that. They're doing advance reconnaissance on the actual battlefields of tomorrow.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
LegacyNS
Member since Jan 16th 2004
38043 posts
Fri Nov-12-04 06:40 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "Good point..."
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

" if the above story isn't true, then the most probable motive would be psychological intimidation."

Don't fear the terrorist, however you better fear us maf@##@s.

LOL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<---- 5....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlgiritpmfo

=======================================

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
abstrak
Charter member
1470 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 01:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "If you read the rest of "Steve's" posts"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

He claims to be an infantryman, that the US is liberating Iraq, and that Osama wants the "Leftocrats" and Kerry to win. In some blogs I've read, this guy's post is being represented as an explaination from an activist point of view, but it's pretty clear that he is a troll and probably fabricated the the facts that he presents.

I think the tanks were most likely there to intimidate and to test the reaction of the public. They don't have to be in a position to fire to do this.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

speaker
Member since Mar 31st 2004
651 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 10:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "The LAPD has been militarized, though..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

They use military choppers to find drug dealers. They have used tanks to attack black panthers, in addition to the usual headline-making drug busts. Other police departments across the country have been using army equipment for decades as well. When inner-cities get like war zones, the government has an excuse to expand its control/repression infrastructures. It's only when some middle-class protestors get fucked with that people notice. That's the sad part.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Thu Nov-11-04 10:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
15. "word..."
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

... the ghettoes had always been testing grounds for what's to come in mainstream society

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Wed Nov-17-04 02:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
17. "Waco: Rules of Engagement"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

anyone seen this great documentary??

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



"Set your minds to Africa" - Fela Kuti

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

so i jumped on the bandwagon:

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Wed Dec-15-04 01:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "Congressman Ron Paul to Congress: Is America a police state?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          



Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002

Is America a Police State?

Mr. Speaker:

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.

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
ConcreteCharlie
Member since Nov 21st 2002
71344 posts
Wed Jan-12-05 09:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "RE: Congressman Ron Paul to Congress: Is America a police state?"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

Ron Paul is the man, during the election it literally pained me to call Kerry both "one of" and "the most" liberal voter(s) in Congress. That is an insult to people like Kucinich and Paul, who is a libertarian for those unaware, who really do have exemplary records of voting against policies that plainly and clearly treat the constitution like Ruben Patterson treats his babysitters. How about some credit where it's due, fuck, I think more highly of Dick Armey for shutting down operation TIPS than I do that walking labia Kerry for skipping every vote of any importance except recent ones in which he's voted the way he's been told after reading a paragraph summary of scores of pages of legislation.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 08:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          



By Sarah Thomsen

If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.

If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine.

Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation.

"What we've seen happen for the last couple of years increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents," Captain Greg Urban said.

Police say they want to prevent the identity theft problem that Milwaukee has, where 13 percent of all violators give a false name.

But in Green Bay, where police say they only average about five cases in a year, drivers we talked with think the new policy is extreme.

"That's going too far," Ken Scherer from Oconto said. "You look at the ID, that's what they're there for. Either it's you or it's not. I don't think that's a valid excuse."

"I would feel uncomfortable but I would do it," Carol Pilgrim of Green Bay said.

Citizens do have the right to say no. "They could say no and not have to worry about getting arrested," defense attorney Jackson Main said. "On the other hand, I'm like everybody else. When a police officer tells me to do something, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to say no or not."

That's exactly why many drivers are uneasy about the fine print in this fingerprinting policy.

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
suave_bro
Member since Nov 19th 2002
9433 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 08:16 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "errr...and this is wrong how?"
In response to Reply # 19


          

A) we are born with social security numbers and u are tripping off of getting fingerprinted at a traffic stop? do u muthafuckas bitch when u are fingerprinted at the bank to cash yall burger king checks?

B) citizens can refuse to be fingerprinted.

C) still trying to save face after this horrible fake ass "armored tank protest" post?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 09:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
21. "you are a bitter little man, aren't you?"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

>A) we are born with social security numbers and u are
>tripping off of getting fingerprinted at a traffic stop? do
>u muthafuckas bitch when u are fingerprinted at the bank to
>cash yall burger king checks?

the only person "bitching" about anything is you. no one is "born" with a social security number, for one. and your example is retarded. banks are not police stations. they are two separate institutions. i wouldn't be okay with banks handing over personal info to police stations for any arbitrary reason. they usually have to establish a well-founded reason to obtain such records. plus you should be the last person to poke @ ppl's jobs video-game-clerk-man.

>B) citizens can refuse to be fingerprinted.

the point is that its an unecessary step that will be used as a gateway mechanism to push through more stringent erosions on liberty. although you seem to be fond of the horse-race approach, any reasonably thinking person can't look at this act in itself and treat it like a stand-alone anomaly.

>C) still trying to save face after this horrible fake ass
>"armored tank protest" post?

are you really that stupid? what was so fake about it? the event happened and the ulterior motive told by that one guy seems unlikely. there's no reason for me to "save face" about anything because if i was wrong, i have no issue admitting that. only idiots like you are driven by such "pride" (which offers a convenient mask for your arrogance).

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
suave_bro
Member since Nov 19th 2002
9433 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 09:39 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "this is what happens when u have no life.."
In response to Reply # 21
Tue Jan-11-05 09:41 AM

          

>the only person "bitching" about anything is you. no one is
>"born" with a social security number, for one.

- errr...so basically in the united states when somebody is born, they aren't issued a social security number? if the answer to this is "NO" then explain how for me if you will...

>and your
>example is retarded. banks are not police stations. they are
>two separate institutions. i wouldn't be okay with banks
>handing over personal info to police stations for any
>arbitrary reason.

- but when u give your thumbprint to the bank do u know what they do with it after u are gone? isnt what this post is about? some huge govt conspiracy to get peoples fingerprints and use them for ______? if that is what this is about and i strongly suspect that it is, all im saying is that banks have been taking peoples fingerprints forever...what say u mattel-negro?


>they usually have to establish a
>well-founded reason to obtain such records. plus you should
>be the last person to poke @ ppl's jobs
>video-game-clerk-man.

- HAHAAA!!! ive posted on here my business ventures awaiting me for when im done with college and if u want the links/phone numbers inbox me and i'll be more than happy 2 link you up. hobbies of mine include filmmaking and video games, ive narrated 2 documentaries and made 1 student short and have appeared in 2 as an actor, i work at a video game store as a hobby as well...wow, somebody with a clearly defined sense of who they are and what they want out of life is clown-worthy? only on okayactivist where the shit of life gather to bitch about their worthless existences....


>>B) citizens can refuse to be fingerprinted.
>
>the point is that its an unecessary step that will be used
>as a gateway mechanism to push through more stringent
>erosions on liberty. although you seem to be fond of the
>horse-race approach, any reasonably thinking person can't
>look at this act in itself and treat it like a stand-alone
>anomaly.

- uhmmmmmmm yeah, and all that bullshit u are whipping and whining about can be avoided if people just say "no". wow, so basically people have a choice of whether or not they can be "oppressed" by the big bad evil government....when do we take to the streets!!!

>>C) still trying to save face after this horrible fake ass
>>"armored tank protest" post?
>
>are you really that stupid? what was so fake about it?

- the fact that "armored tank busts up rally/martial law" is 100% misleading propaganda.

>the
>event happened and the ulterior motive told by that one guy
>seems unlikely. there's no reason for me to "save face"
>about anything because if i was wrong, i have no issue
>admitting that. only idiots like you are driven by such
>"pride" (which offers a convenient mask for your arrogance).

- err....do i HAVE to refer to back to post #9?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 10:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
27. "you have no reading skills"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

>- but when u give your thumbprint to the bank do u know what
>they do with it after u are gone? isnt what this post is
>about? some huge govt conspiracy to get peoples fingerprints
>and use them for ______? if that is what this is about and i
>strongly suspect that it is, all im saying is that banks
>have been taking peoples fingerprints forever...what say u
>mattel-negro?



>>they usually have to establish a
>>well-founded reason to obtain such records. plus you should
>>be the last person to poke @ ppl's jobs
>>video-game-clerk-man.
>
>- HAHAAA!!! ive posted on here my business ventures awaiting
>me for when im done with college and if u want the
>links/phone numbers inbox me and i'll be more than happy 2
>link you up. hobbies of mine include filmmaking and video
>games, ive narrated 2 documentaries and made 1 student short
>and have appeared in 2 as an actor, i work at a video game
>store as a hobby as well...wow, somebody with a clearly
>defined sense of who they are and what they want out of life
>is clown-worthy? only on okayactivist where the shit of life
>gather to bitch about their worthless existences....

you really seek external validation don't you? most people have the common sense to avoid placing their personal shit at the disposal of the general public. you need therapy kid.

>- the fact that "armored tank busts up rally/martial law" is
>100% misleading propaganda.

what exactly are you quoting, mr. shit for brains? i didn't write the above. i copy and pasted an article with the associated links. then you go fill in the blanks and assume this or that. here's some sound advice... read. "let it swirl in your brain" (c) chris rock. understand what exactly is being said... THEN form an opinion

>>the
>>event happened and the ulterior motive told by that one guy
>>seems unlikely. there's no reason for me to "save face"
>>about anything because if i was wrong, i have no issue
>>admitting that. only idiots like you are driven by such
>>"pride" (which offers a convenient mask for your arrogance).
>
>- err....do i HAVE to refer to back to post #9?

do i HAVE to refer you to post #11 and #13?

damn... you got the analytical skills of a 3 year old.

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
suave_bro
Member since Nov 19th 2002
9433 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 11:49 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "comedy..."
In response to Reply # 27


          

>you really seek external validation don't you? most people
>have the common sense to avoid placing their personal shit
>at the disposal of the general public. you need therapy kid.

- hmmm...so basically all the hundreds of people on okayplayer.com who have links 2 their artwork and link people up to their jobs websites or folks who are pushing albums/films are begging for attention? wow. I dont even have my shit in my sig the way others do either...go figure.


>>- the fact that "armored tank busts up rally/martial law" is
>>100% misleading propaganda.
>
>what exactly are you quoting, mr. shit for brains? i didn't
>write the above. i copy and pasted an article with the
>associated links. then you go fill in the blanks and assume
>this or that. here's some sound advice... read. "let it
>swirl in your brain" (c) chris rock. understand what exactly
>is being said... THEN form an opinion

- HAHHAAA pure comedy. you, like the rest of you kind, were so quick to throw this video around of the evil U.S. government pouncing on its people before the TRUTH of what happened was ever reported...u got your ass handed to you in post 9 so u come with a completely unrelated topic to try and save face...u are a joke my friend. if u ever need me to run down the reasons why libs/democrats have 0 power in this country feel free to ask...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Wed Jan-12-05 10:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
33. "did you know that..."
In response to Reply # 30


  

          

... you're a degenerate dumbass? allow me to explain:

>>you really seek external validation don't you? most people
>>have the common sense to avoid placing their personal shit
>>at the disposal of the general public. you need therapy kid.
>
>- hmmm...so basically all the hundreds of people on
>okayplayer.com who have links 2 their artwork and link
>people up to their jobs websites or folks who are pushing
>albums/films are begging for attention? wow. I dont even
>have my shit in my sig the way others do either...go figure.

its funny that you have the balls to compare your "notice me" pleas to folks advertising their websites, art, and music. the shit that you claim to be doing has no need for the type of needless mention you seem fond of doing. you reap no benefit by mentioning that shit whereas people who are artists, musicians, webmasters, etc... would. in short, its safe to assume that no one gives a flying fuck what you do. it doesn't validate your argument, support your position, or encourage anyone to see things your way. therefore, you do that shit for your flailing ego. if you got relevent expertise on a subject matter, then there could be an understandable premise for you mentioning what you do. but you don't.

>>>- the fact that "armored tank busts up rally/martial law" is
>>>100% misleading propaganda.
>>
>>what exactly are you quoting, mr. shit for brains? i didn't
>>write the above. i copy and pasted an article with the
>>associated links. then you go fill in the blanks and assume
>>this or that. here's some sound advice... read. "let it
>>swirl in your brain" (c) chris rock. understand what exactly
>>is being said... THEN form an opinion
>
>- HAHHAAA pure comedy. you, like the rest of you kind, were
>so quick to throw this video around of the evil U.S.
>government pouncing on its people before the TRUTH of what
>happened was ever reported...

"throw this video around"?? are you seriously using that expression to describe this post? GTFOH idiot. people like you HATE seeing or reading anything that shakes up your idealistic interpretation of the institutions you support and believe in- hence your atypical reaction to seeing the footage. that's why you mischaracterize what someone like myself says or writes- because the logical bankruptcy of your position on many issues primarily relies on lies and half-truths.

>u got your ass handed to you in
>post 9 so u come with a completely unrelated topic to try
>and save face...u are a joke my friend.

part with the crack pipe for a minute and read posts #11, 12, and 13 before talking about me having "my ass handed to in post #9". only an idiot like you would be quick to turn a legitimate discussion into an ego contest. either attack the argument or STFU, clown.

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

foxnesn
Charter member
5240 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 10:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "i see how it is"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

when it comes to civil liberties you guys only care about issues that are important to you. meanwhile, a small group of peaceful christians are thrown in jail for reading the bible and yall are ok with that. lmao.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 10:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
26. "where do you get off being so judgmental?"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

lay off that high-horse. i don't see how it helps whatever cause you are trying to advocate

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
foxnesn
Charter member
5240 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 10:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "pot calling the kettle black"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
TripleX
Charter member
7116 posts
Tue Jan-11-05 11:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "The National Guard office is close to the Fed Bldg"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

and there are hummers and various military vechiles stored there. The National Guard office is west of the 405, while the Federal Building is East of the 405. The two buildings are within 2 miles of each other.





http://www.myspace.com/tresequis

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ConcreteCharlie
Member since Nov 21st 2002
71344 posts
Wed Jan-12-05 09:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "This shit is a trip"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

There's been limited local media follow up on this around Los Angeles, WTF? This one cat I know used to work fairly high up the chain in the LAPD, it's scary as fuck what most major PDs have at their disposal; it's like a small division of the armed forces. Of course, we all know the PPD is not above dropping bombs on a whole goddamn city block...

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Thu Jan-13-05 06:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
34. "internal passport provision in Intelligence Reform Act"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          



Bush Admin Hiring of Ex-KGB Chiefs to Develop
Internal Passport
From Charlotte Iserbyt
dumbdown@blazenetme.net
1-13-5


Date: January 9, 2005 9:49:50 AM EST
To: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Subject: Christmas Eve Encounter on Powell Street

Hello, Congresswoman Pelosi:

My name is Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt and I live in Bath, Maine. I am the author of "the deliberate dumbing down of america...A Chronological Paper Trail" I served as Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education during President Reagan's first term...was relieved of my duties for leaking to the press a very important grant related to technology to which I felt the public should have access. My background also includes employment by the U.S. Department of State from 1956-1964, working in Soviet and Middle Eastern affairs, and overseas in South Africa and in Belgium. I am presently a freelance writer.

You may recall meeting me on Christmas Eve, about 5 p.m., as you were crossing Powell Street in San Francisco. (I was visiting my son who lives in San Francisco.) I believe you and I had just come out of Sak's Fifth Avenue. I wouldn't assume you would remember people who come up to you with questions...out of the blue...but since it was Christmas Eve I figure you may well recall our meeting. You were most gracious in taking time to talk to me, a perfect stranger, and it is for that reason that I am taking the liberty of writing to you.

I identified myself as a former "conservative Republican" turned Independent, and said to you that I was very concerned over the war in Iraq and the use by the Bush Administration of 9/11 to get unconstitutional legislation passed which endangers the civil rights of Americans. I then asked you if you were aware of the Bush Administration's hiring of former Soviet KGB Chiefs (Generals) Yvgeny Primakov and Alexander Karpov to assist Homeland Security and DARPA in the design of an internal passport for Americans. You seemed surprised but did seem to recognize the name Primakov. The subject of hiring of these former KGB Chiefs has occupied much of my time for almost two years since my two Senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins, refuse to respond with a YES or NO answer to that question. I have waited almost two years for a response from Senator Snowe, and six months for a response from Senator Collins. I, and a colleague, a public school teacher, have written many letters to both Senators and have visited Senator Snowe's Portland, Maine office two times, and finally her Chief of Staff, Cheryl, the former Mayor of a town in Maine, regretfully explained to us that there was nothing the state office could do for us.

Since I assume you will be interested in this case, I am taking the liberty of forwarding to you my latest article, the first published by the major media, related to this subject, and FINALLY a response to that published letter from MIchael Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel for Senator Collins. Evidently the fact that the editor of the Opinion Page of The Times Record of Brunswick, Maine had the courage to publish my article, forced Mr. Bopp to react. Great! The Times Record has a fairly important readership due to its location in midcoast Maine, the home of Bath Iron Works (shipbuilding), Bowdoin College, and the Brunswick Naval Air Station which is involved in the war in Iraq.

You may also wish to go to my website<http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com>
click on "Articles", to read articles I have written on this subject which have been posted on Internet sites over the past eighteen months.

I believe you will agree that the hiring of two ex-KGB Chiefs, one of whom (Primakov) is very close to Saddam Hussein and was in Baghdad a couple of weeks prior to the U.S. invasion, is very important. There is so much to this story which has not been touched by the media, except very recently by Bill Gertz in his article entitled "Pentagon Ousts Official Who Tied Russia, Iraq Arms" The Washington Times, 12/30/04. Gertz discussed the firing of John Shaw, at Defense, who exposed fact two former Soviet generals (could one be Primakov?) had been in Iraq prior to our invasion to help Hussein move WMD out of the country. I will also forward that information to you.

This whole story reminds me of the U.S. Government's hiring of Nazi scientists, etc. after World War II. As the French would say "plus que ca change, plus que ca reste la meme chose."

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and the enclosures which will be emailed separately. I will also send you these materials via snailmail.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Happy New Year!

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
1062 Washington Street
Bath, ME 04530
207-442-7899 or 0543
fax: 442-0551


Intelligence Reform's Internal Passport

letters@TimesRecord.Com
12/28/2004

Those Who Say We Are Safer Are Wrong

By Charlotte Iserbyt
Times Record Contributor
1-13-5

In my humble opinion, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, should not be allowed to offer lessons in civics at Mt. Ararat Middle School or any other school (Dec. 8, Sen. Collins offers lesson in civics").
Her recent and very important role, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., in passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 proves that she knows little about either the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. Included in this legislation is an internal passport system that should send chills up the backs of Americans accustomed to the freedom to travel by air, plane, rail, car or foot.

On Dec. 7, Rep. Ron Paul, R.-Texas, said the following regarding the internal passport provision found in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004:

"Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and screening points actually will make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans! Every conservative who believes in constitutional restraints on government should reject the authoritarian national ID and the nonsensical intelligence bill itself."

Sen. Robert Bird, D.-W.Va., said of this legislation: Congress acted like "... pygmies on the battlefield of history" rushing to judgment and passing a bad piece of legislation "... like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure."

Next year, the Department of Homeland Security (another monstrous waste of money and resources) will begin issuing so-called "uniformity regulations" to the sovereign states of the Union requiring that all driver's licenses and birth certificates meet some federal standards along with biometrics "security" provisions. Road-block checkpoints will then be set up and we, the people, for the first time since this Republic was birthed, just like the slaves in Stalinist Russia, will be required to "show your papers!"

Maine citizens also should know that both Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Collins are aware of, but unwilling to discuss, the hiring in 2003 by the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security, Office of Information Awareness, of two ex-KGB chiefs (secret police in the Soviet Union) by the names of Gen. Alexander Karpov and Gen. Yvgeny Primakov. Primakov was also Premier of Russia in the late nineties, is a close associate of Saddam Hussein, and was in Baghdad one month prior to the U.S. invasion, advising Hussein on how to deal with the United States!

Question: Why would the administration hire such infamous thugs and enemies of our country?

Answer: To assist in the development of an internal passport for Americans.

The information about Karpov and Primakov was given to me 18 months ago by two very credible, independent sources: a former covert intelligence agent in the United States and a well-known journalist/ author in England who served as economic adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Along with several other of the senators' constituents, I have been asking both of them for a "yes" or "no" reply as to whether such hiring did take place. It has been 18 months since I initially wrote to Sen. Snowe. There have been numerous follow-up letters and e-mails and two visits to her Portland office. It has been six months since I wrote to Sen. Collins. Neither senator has responded to my requests. Their unwillingness to provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer can be interpreted in only one way. I leave it up to the reader to come to his or her own conclusion.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt lives in Bath.

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Wed Jan-26-05 11:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
35. "First they came for the 'terrorists'..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

by Thom Hartmann -


The Gonzales confirmation is not just about the torture memos. It's much bigger than that.

If Bush continues to roll back human and civil rights - and the installation of Alberto Gonzalez as America's chief law enforcement officer is very much a part of his campaign to do so - we may be facing a "Pastor Niemöller moment" sooner than most of us could have imagined.

Tuesday, January 10, 2005, is the third anniversary of the opening of America's first concentration camp since Japanese Americans were shamefully interred during WWII. Since the first Guantanamo camp was opened, the Bush administration has built additional concentration camps - the latest known as Camp Five - in Cuba, and is asking Congress for $29 million to build concentration Camp Six.

These concentration camps detain uncharged, untried, unconvicted individuals, who may be held for the rest of their lives because, as the UK's Guardian newspaper noted on January 5th of this year, the Bush administration "lacks proof" that they are either criminals or POWs.

This is one of the more visible parts of a much larger campaign the Bush administration has embarked on to reverse not only 229 years of the American rule of law regarding the rights of average citizens, but nearly eight centuries of human rights that go back to an epic moment in 1215 on a meadow by the River Thames.

The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day.

Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free"), as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.

Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:

"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts.

Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime.

King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."

This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument supported by Alberto Gonzales.

But just as George's decree is meeting resistance, Charles' decree wasn't well received. The result of his overt assault on the rights of citizens led to a sort of revolt in the British Parliament, producing the 1628 "Petition of Right" law, an early version of our Fourth through Eighth Amendments, which restated Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta and added that "writs of habeas corpus, there to undergo and receive as the court should order." It was later strengthened with the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1640" and a second "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679."

Thus, the right to suspend habeas corpus no longer was held by the King. It was exercised solely by the people's (elected and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament.

The third George to govern the United Kingdom confronted this in 1815 when he came into possession of Napoleon Bonaparte. But the British laws were so explicit that everybody was entitled to habeas corpus - even people who were not British citizens - that when Napoleon surrendered on the deck of the British flagship Bellerophon after the battle of Waterloo in 1815, the British Parliament had to pass a law ("An Act For The More Effectually Detaining In Custody Napoleon Bonaparte") to suspend habeas corpus so King George III could legally continue to hold him prisoner (and then legally exile him to a British fortification on a distant island).

Ironically, the third George to govern the United States now says, 190 years later, that unlike England's George III, he does not need an act of Congress to detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island.

To facilitate this, our Third George, and his able counselor Judge Gonzales, have brought forth new "legal" terms - "enemy combatant" and "terrorist" - and invented a new set of law and rights (or non-laws and non-rights) for people they label as such.

It's a virtual repeat of Charles I's doctrine that a nation's ruler may do whatever he wants because he's the one in charge - "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."

Interestingly, the United States Constitution does provide for special exceptions to the involuntary detention of persons - it is legal to suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution says it can only be done by Congress, not by the President.

Article I of the Constitution outlines the powers and limits of the Legislative Branch of government (Article 2 lays out the Executive Branch, and Article 3 defines the Judicial Branch). In Section 9, Clause 2 of Article I, the Constitution says of the Legislative branch's authority: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was well aware of this during the Civil War, and was the first president to successfully ask Congress (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina.

But President George W. Bush has not asked Congress for, and has not been granted, a suspension of habeas corpus for his so-called "war on terrorism," a "war" which he and his advisors have implied may last well beyond our lifetimes.

Nonetheless, our President, with consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." Some of their names are familiar to us - US citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, for example - but there are hundreds whose names we are not even allowed to know. Perhaps thousands. It's a state secret, after all. Per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.

But how do we deal with people who want to kill us, to destroy our nation, to terrorize us?

Every president from George Washington to Bill Clinton has understood that there are two categories of people who can be incarcerated legally - Prisoners of War and criminals. The former have rights under both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, and the latter under the U.S. Constitution.

These two categories encompass every possible actual threat to a nation and its people, and have withstood the test of time from the days of King John to today.

For example, when Bill Clinton was confronted with a heinous act of terrorism within the United States - the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City - he didn't declare a "war" on whoever the terrorist may be, or suspend habeas corpus. Instead, he immediately defined the perpetrators as thugs and criminals, and brought the full weight of the American and international criminal justice system to bear, capturing Timothy McVeigh and using Interpol to search the world for possible McVeigh allies. Justice was served, the victims achieved closure, and our rights were left largely intact.

But, just as Hitler and his close advisors used the burning of the Reichstag building to declare a perpetual "war on terrorism," and then moved to suspend habeas corpus and other rights, so too have George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.

The Founders must be turning in their graves. Clearly they never imagined such a thing in their wildest dreams. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84:

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. ...he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:

"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.'''

While the sexy stuff that members of Congress and the news media want to talk about when they question Alberto Gonzales is torture - after all, the pictures are now iconic and have worldwide distribution - the torture of these and other prisoners in US custody is really a subset of a larger issue.

The bigger question here is whether George W. Bush has the right to ignore the U.S. Constitution and international treaties, violate human rights and civil liberties, promote "preemptive" wars, and build concentration camps for the permanent imprisonment of untried and unconvicted individuals - all simply because he says he can, per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis. And whether we want the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the man who would be charged with prosecuting Bush or those in his administration who may break the law, to be a man who agrees that Bush stands above the law and the Constitution.

The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded.

Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America's first PATRIOT Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could - as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process.

"I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough.

"But would the honest patriot,"he continued, "in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear that this government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not.

"I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it is the only one where every man, at the call of the laws, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern."

The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

"The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

Modern conservatives still revere Burke and Adams and sneer at Jefferson, but many are nonetheless alarmed by Bush's unprecedented attack on the Constitution. As Russell Kirk wrote in his seminal 1953 book "The Conservative Mind" - the book which inspired a generation of conservatives from Buckley to Goldwater - a "New Society," abandoning the traditional values of America, could easily come into being if "radicals" such as Bush were to take over our government and discard the Constitution.

This New Society, Kirk wrote in his chapter "The Promise of Conservatism," would be dominated by "the gratification of a lust for power and the destruction of all ancient political institutions in the interest of the new dominant elites. The great Plan requires that the public be kept constantly in an emotional state closely resembling that of a nation at war; this lacking, obedience and co-operation shrivel..." Kirk adds that "Big Brother remains to show the donkey the stick instead of the carrot."

When I was working in Russia some years ago, a friend in Kaliningrad told me a perhaps apocryphal story about Nikita Khrushchev, who, following Stalin's death, gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?"

The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence.

"Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence.

Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer.

Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile.

"Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit."

The question for our day is who will speak up against George W. Bush and his Stalinist policies? Who will speak against the man who punishes reporters and news organizations by cutting off their access; who punishes politicians by targeting them in their home districts; who punishes truth-tellers in the Executive branch by character assassination that even extends to destroying their spouse's careers?

Oddly, so far it's only been Justice Antonin Scalia, a man with whom I often strongly disagree. Scalia wrote in his minority dissent in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President does not have the power to suspend habeas corpus by executive decree. Instead, he wrote: "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires..."

Scalia went on to quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist Number 8, who noted that:

"The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free."

"The Founders warned us about the risk," Scalia noted in his Hamdi dissent, "and equipped us with a Constitution designed to deal with it.

"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis..." but, Scalia added, "that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it."

How ironic that Justice Scalia was willing to stand up to George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales, but most of the Senate Democrats won't.

The Democrats in Congress say they're going to confirm Judge Gonzales and "keep their powder dry" for future, larger battles like Supreme Court nominations. But as Pastor Niemöller reminds us, the loss of liberty is incremental, not sudden and dramatic.

One either totally stands for republican democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law in our republic, or one doesn't. Gonzales has shown that he does not, both by his prevarication in his confirmation hearings, his actions in condoning Bush's illegal suspension of habeas corpus and PATRIOT Act abuses of constitutionally-protected civil and human rights, and his support of other Bush decrees implicitly per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.

To quote Scalia's summary in the Hamdi case, "Because the Court has proceeded to meet the current emergency in a manner the Constitution does not envision , I respectfully dissent."

But is dissent enough?

Or must we work for a wholesale change in our representatives, demanding that they either stand up for the principles for which so many Americans have fought and died, or leave the political arena altogether?

Where are the true democrats among the Democrats? (Or, for that matter, the true republicans among the Republicans?) Have they all lost their voices?

First Bush and Gonzales came for the terrorists, but I was not a terrorist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the enemy combatants, but I was not a combatant, so I did not object. Then they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, but I was not a protestor and so I only voiced my unease.

If we - and our elected representatives - do not speak out now, loudly and forcefully, it may not be long before they come for the rest of us.


_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Mon Feb-14-05 01:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
36. "Parents fight school over mandatory RFID on kids"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          



A school in California has declared that chipping its young pupils is mandatory - and parents are furious about it.

Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, California, introduced a scheme last month to use RFID to identify its pupils. The RFID chips are worn around the neck in the form of ID badges and can be used to monitor where the children are on school grounds, and carry the child's name, photo, grade and unique school ID number.

A recent letter sent home to parents from the school said: "It is important the badge be worn at all times during school hours. This additional step will help keep your child safe while at school."

The letter concludes: "Students who lose or destroy their badges will be accountable for the cost of replacing them."

According to the school's weekly bulletin, the system allowed the staff to find when a non-student was in the school, due to the interloper's lack of badge. The bulletin also says the RFID tags could be used to help identify any missing children in the event of an emergency.

The newsletter adds: "Questions have arisen regarding the safety of the materials used in the badges. The chip that is used to activate the attendance of a child entering a classroom does not have any radioactive elements."

Parents aren't just complaining about the chips on health grounds, they're complaining about the civil liberties implications too.

Michael Cantrall, parent of one of the children at Brittan Elementary, said: "Are we trying to bring them up with respect and trust, or tell them that you can't trust anyone, you are always going to be monitored and someone is always going to be watching you?", according to a report in the Associated Press.

Some parents have complained to the school authorities about the use of the tags and civil liberties groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have taken up the cause.

Principal Earnie Graham told the AP that he hopes to add a barcode to the RFID tag to allow the children to pay for meals at school and take out library books. He said that while the whole school must wear the badges, only the seventh and eighth graders are being tracked.



_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #26458 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com