After reading "Sanctions and War on Iraq: In 300 words" by Citizens Concerned for the People of Iraq, and being deeply moved by its concise articulation of that decade-long crisis situation, I wanted to create something similar regarding the conundrum that is 9-11. However, given the scale and multi-dimensional nature of unresolved and unknown factors involving the events of that day, I have elected to record some of the more significant issues people in America must collectively address.

Contents

The 9-11 Bombings are not Acts of War The 9-11 Bombings are Crimes Against Humanity Rejecting the Foundations of International Law U.S. "Unsigns" International Criminal Court Treaty Making Nuclear War Thinkable Might-Makes-Right Instead of Rule of Law Bush I: Crimes Against Humanity, Rejection of Rule of Law Since 1991, a World Trade Center's worth of Iraqi children continue to die every month U.S. Development of Biological Weapons Watch What We Say, Not What We Do Domestic Terrorism: The "USA PATRIOT Act" of 2001 Serial Assaults on Constitutional Liberties

Domestic Terrorism: Homeland Security Paving the Way for Our Constitutional Dictatorship How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public's Right to Know Domestic Terrorism: General Ashcroft's "Enemy Citizens," Martial Law and Internment Camps Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication 9-11 Timeline: minute-by-minute Stand Down from Incompetence or Complicity? Official 9-11 Misrepresentations Reclaiming Our Voice and Liberties Footnotes References

 

The 9-11 Bombings are not Acts of War

The 9-11 Bombings are Crimes Against Humanity

Members of the United States government have contrived many misrepresentations and sins of omission about the events of 11 September 2001. As the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL, a Quaker lobby) observes, "The events of September 11, as destructive as they were, did not constitute an act of war directed against the U.S. by another nation. . . . The greatest threat to the continued existence of a free and democratic U.S. will not come from al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. Rather, it will come from U.S. leaders who are willing to sacrifice those values to achieve other goals." [1]

Benjamin Ferencz was the United States Chief Prosecutor at the Einsatzgruppen Trial of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of World War II Major German War Criminals.[2] He sought to establish a legal precedent that would encourage a more humane and secure world in the future. Ferencz clarifies the FCNL's assertion that the 9-11 bombings were not an act of war:

"What has happened here is not war in its traditional sense. This is clearly a crime against humanity. War crimes are crimes which happen in war time. There is a confusion there. This is a crime against humanity because it is deliberate and intentional killing of large numbers of civilians for political or other purposes. That is not tolerable under the international systems. And it should be prosecuted pursuant to the existing laws. . . . We shouldn't let them kill our principles at the same time they kill our people. And our principles are respect for the rule of law. Not charging in blindly and killing people because we are blinded by our tears and our rage. . . .

"We must first draw up an indictment of the crime and specify what the crimes were, listing all the names of the related organizations. Not merely the direct perpetrators are responsible but all those who aided and abetted them before or after the crime. These should be listed and described. And then a demand made pursuant to existing United Nations resolutions, calling upon all states to arrest and detain the persons named in the indictment so they can be interrogated by U.S. examiners. . . .

"I realize that [the judicial process] is slow and cumbersome but it is not inadequate. I say to the skeptics, Follow your procedure and you'll find out what happens. You have seen what happens. We will have more fanatics and more zealots deciding to come and kill the evil, the United States. We don't want to do that. We want to uphold our principles. The United States was the moving party behind the Nuremberg Trials and behind insisting upon the rule of law. . . .

"We're not re-writing any rules. We don't have to re-write any rules. We have to apply the existing rules. To call them "terrorists" is also a misleading term. There's no agreement on what terrorism is. One man's terrorism is another man's heroism. . . . We try them for mass murder. That's a crime under every jurisdiction and that's what's happened here and that is a crime against humanity." [3]

It is not accidental that the Bush administration's response to the bombings was to label it an act of war and to label the perpetrators as terrorists. These assertions were deliberate. In doing so, the greatest opportunity to resolve this terrible crime through respect for and adherence to the rule of law was squandered. As Benjamin Ferencz points out, to call them terrorists is also a misleading term because there is no agreement on what terrorism is. To many people, the fact that the United States is the largest arms manufacturer and supplier in the world makes America the most dreaded terrorist of all. Beyond pandering to people's grief, fear, and anger, what interests have been served by committing the United States to a open-war economy and purpose? Mislabeling the perpetrators of these crimes as terrorist serves to confuse people's understanding of the situation. What interests are served by obfuscating these issues?

On 14 September 2001, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the one solitary dissenting voice in Congress against giving Bush Jr. full Congressional approval for carrying out his War on Terrorism. She expressed her reasoning and concerns in a responsible, mature, and thoughtful manner:

". . . I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. . . . However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today -- let us more fully understand their consequences. . . . I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multifaceted. We must not rush to judgement. Far too many innocent people have already died. . . . [W]e must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes. In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to "take all necessary measures" to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam. At this time Senator Wayne Morse [cast] one of the two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. . . . Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences. I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, `As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.'" [4]

Last April Rep. Lee received the Wayne Morse Integrity in Government Award for 2002.[5] In 1964 when Senator Wayne Morse voted against the Tonkin Gulf resolution -- giving President Johnson full power to wage war in Vietnam -- he stated, "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake."

Whether or not the Tonkin Gulf incident was a fabrication,[6] the ensuing U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was a tragic mistake. Today, an open-ended war against an unspecified enemy in the name of eradicating terrorism from the face of the earth is only about war. There is no pursuit of peace or creative resolution to conflict in such an agenda. It is critical to be clear about the fact that, although most will argue we are "at war," the 9-11 bombings were not an act of war. We are confronted with a crime against humanity and must not fall into the trap of framing this situation as a justification for making war. Erroneously labeling this as a war only further escalates the seige mentality that has been engendered by a succession of "wars" including the War on Poverty, the War on AIDS, the War on Drugs, and now the "war" on terrorism.

We examine here how reclaiming and emphasizing the fact that the 9-11 bombings were crimes against humanity and not an act of war is not simply an intellectual exercise in semantics but rather a struggle for the spirit and hope of what this nation-state symbolizes in its most hopeful expression. We are facing the greatest challenge ever to the preservation and continuity of the constitutional system of liberties and the cherished Bill of Rights, the foundation of our nation.

 

Rejecting the Foundations of International Law

U.S. "Unsigns" the International Criminal Court Treaty

After choosing to misrepresent the fact that the September 11th bombings were crimes against humanity, and dictating a policy of war that will not end "in our lifetime", the Bush II administration exacerbates the 9-11 tragedy by repudiating and scrapping an entire body of codified international law including the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an international convention to regulate the trade in small arms, a verification Protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention, an international convention to regulate and reduce smoking, the World Conference Against Racism, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Treaty.

On 1 July 2002 a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) was created. The ICC purpose is to have a body that can prosecute serious crimes against humanity (no matter who committed them) and try people for gross violations of human rights. It would serve to guarantee human rights, independently. Sixty countries were needed to ratify the ICC which occurred on 11 April 2002. At the beginning of May, Bush II announced its resolve to "unsign" the Rome Statute creating the ICC. In his article, "Know the Truth About The International Criminal Court," Benjamin Ferencz explains how, "[a]s part of an ongoing campaign against the ICC, the United States threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping forces unless the new international court was divested of any authority to try Americans."

"On July 12, 2002, the United States badgered the Security Council of the United Nations into granting a limited exemption for American peacekeepers. It left no doubt that its opposition would continue unabated. Overwhelming protests from other nations reflected their resentment against every attempt to undermine the new court. . . . The US insistence upon getting advance immunity now and its involvement of the Security Council implies that the ICC, designed to curb major crimes that threaten peace, is seen by our government as a threat to peace. Such unfounded and absurd allegations make other nations nervous about US intentions.

"The US representatives seem to ignore the fact that the tribunal will have the entire Assembly of State Parties looking over its shoulders at all times. The Assembly now numbers 76 nations, including the entire European Community, England, Canada, Australia and other faithful friends of the US. They control the budget and can fire anyone who might be tempted to politicize the office. The ICC has no police force or enforcement mechanism. Its acceptance depends upon its reputation for integrity and competence. Politicization of the court would amount to its suicide.

"The American Bar Association, the New York Bar Association and the leading international lawyers in the country, including every living former Nuremberg prosecutor, all agree that it is in the interest of the US and its military to support the ICC. I believe the majority of the American public, if they knew the truth, would share the same conclusion.

"The Bush Administration's unparalleled renunciation of President Clinton's signature to the treaty astounded and angered many of our allies. . . . The US inspired the world at Nuremberg by demanding that never again would crimes against humanity be allowed to go unpunished. We weaken our standing in the world when we insist that law applies to everyone else but not to the United States. No nation and no person has a sovereign right to commit crimes against humanity with impunity.

"The best way to protect our military, and the peace of the world, is through universal and equal enforcement of the rule of law for everyone." [7]

Amnesty International challenged the U.S. "unsigning" pointing out that "the reasons it gave -- including that U.S. troops acting in accordance with the laws of war would be vulnerable to prosecution -- do not ring true; rather they sound like lame political excuses and rampant unilateralism."

"By the unprecedented action of `unsigning' a treaty, the U.S. darkens the shadow cast on its global leadership when it comes to international justice and accountability. It also sends a staggeringly dangerous message to nations where human rights are violated: that it is acceptable to `opt-out' of international agreements. After this shameful act, what will others believe is the value of the U.S. government's word or it's president's signature on a treaty?" [8]

The legal fallout created by the double-standards implemented by United States foreign policy under Bush II is unprecedented in scope and nightmarish in reach. On August 15th the State Department announced "The United States is seeking an agreement with Colombia to protect American military personnel in the South American country against prosecution by the International Criminal Court." Such policy is not only limited to Columbia. Bush II's intentions are to tie further U.S. military aid to a pledge granting the U.S. immunity for any recipient country that has ratified the ICC treaty.

"Department spokesman Philip Reeker noted that the Bush administration is seeking such agreements with a number of countries to ensure there will be no prosecutions for alleged rights abuses by American soldiers. U.S. officials are worried about politically motivated prosecutions. The United States maintains hundreds of troops in Colombia, mostly for training of troops for counternarcotics activities.

"Reeker, recalling comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell, said the administration is not resorting to threats in its attempts to secure immunity for American servicemen overseas.

"Under a new law, U.S. military aid would be cut off to countries that have ratified the treaty creating the court, except those granted a waiver. Countries granting an immunity pledge will continue to receive aid." [9]

In later July the UN Security Council granted the United States a 12-month grace period in which American peacekeepers would be exempt from prosecution by the ICC. According to Mexico's Representative Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, "The general opinion of the international community is that this is wrong." [10]

By its actions and deeds, Bush II's contempt for universal and equal enforcement of the same rule of law for everyone belies newspeak assertions "to ensure there will be no prosecutions for alleged [ie, human] rights abuses by American soldiers", or that "U.S. officials are worried about politically [ie, rule of law] motivated prosecutions". Benjamin Ferencz identifies the main argument made by the U.S. against the ICC and refutes it:

"The main argument made by the US is that American peacekeepers might be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions by the new tribunal. The facts have been egregiously misstated. There is no such danger.

"Only crimes committed after July 1, 2002, can be considered by the ICC. Jurisdiction of the court is limited to genocide, crimes against humanity and major war crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Surely, American soldiers do not intend to commit such crimes. 18 highly qualified judges, male and female, sworn to uphold the law and justice, will be elected from those many nations that have ratified the treaty creating the court.

"No investigation can be started by the prosecutor without prior authorization by a three-judge panel. Appeals can be filed with a five-judge panel. The accused's country must be informed and the case transferred to them if they wish to try the suspect. Only leaders responsible for planning or perpetrating the major crimes are the intended targets and only if their own state is unable or unwilling to give them a fair trial. The US is not in that category." [11]

The U.S. does not want to be held accountable to the same rule of law as everyone else. Among other things, what Bush II is saying is that it doesn't want to have any independent judicial venue scrutinize its military ventures as reported by independent journalists.

With respect to Iraq, international law professor Francis Boyle emphasizes the Nuremberg Charter and the real reason Bush II is rejecting the authority of the ICC:

"`Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices' who participate in `the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy' to commit any of the crimes proscribed by the Nuremberg Charter `are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such plan.' The language concerning involvement in a criminal conspiracy, Boyle said, comes straight from Supreme Court-approved U.S. law, namely the Pinkerton rule.

"The White House lawyers are well aware that they are engaging in `an on-going criminal conspiracy to conduct a war of aggression,' Boyle said, adding, `The New York Times finally conceded that the reason the United States sabotaged the International Criminal Court (ICC) is because senior members of the Bush administration are afraid that they risk criminal prosecution.' The notion that the U.S. government rejects the ICC because it places military personnel at risk of prosecution is `nonsense,' Boyle said. It is the highly paid civilian planners at the Pentagon and the White House who have most to fear from the ICC because of their involvement in planning war crimes, according to Boyle." [12]

 

Making Nuclear War Thinkable

Might-Makes-Right Instead of Rule of Law

Among the most disturbing consequences of the other repudiations, U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is unraveling three decades of arms control -- posing the paramount threat of global incineration since the close of World War II. Bush II is working to replace such foundations of law as those listed above, with a supreme reliance on the United States military to supposedly maintain security. Again, the FCNL pinpoints the actual threat:

"The events of September 11 did not direct the U.S. to increase its reliance on the military. It is the Administration and its congressional allies that have raised military spending to new heights and that are subtly shifting responsibilities (such as diplomacy and nation-building) from civil society to military control." [13]

The move to shift political power and responsibilities from civil society to military control has long been underway. Its momentum broke the surface 15 years ago during the Iran Contra hearings when Representative Jack Brooks tried to question Oliver North about martial law plans including suspension of the U.S. Constitution, military commanders running state and local governments, and establishment by the federal government of concentration camps. We will come back to the issue of domestic dictatorship later.

Francis Boyle possesses an impressive background as an international law professor and human rights lawyer.[14] Recently he framed the historical context of the current rash of international legal nihilism and how last January we witnessed another shameless exploitation of the 9-11 tragedy "in order to justify a reckless decision that had already been made for other reasons long before."

"For twelve years the Constitution and the Rule of Law -- whether domestic or international -- never deterred the Reagan/Bush administrations from pursuing their internationally lawless and criminal policies around the world. The same was true for the Clinton administration as well -- invading Haiti; bombing Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Serbia; the Lewinsky scandal, etc. The Bush Jr administration has behaved no differently from its lineal Machiavellian predecessors. Their bellicose handling of the 11 September 2001 tragedy was no exception to this general rule.

The Bush Jr withdrawal from the ABM Treaty

"Then, as had been foreshadowed, whispered, hinted at and finally broadcast over a period of several months, came the monumentally insane, horrendous, and tragic announcement on 13 December 2001 by the Bush Jr administration to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, effective within six months. Of course it was sheer coincidence that the Pentagon released their self-styled Bin Laden Video just as Bush Jr himself publicly announced his indefensible decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in order to pursue his phantasmagorical National Missile Defense (NMD) Program, the lineal successor to the Reagan/Bush Star Wars dream. Predictably, the Bin Laden Video back-staged this major, pro-nuclear announcement. Once again the terrible national tragedy of 11 September was shamelessly exploited in order to justify a reckless decision that had already been made for other reasons long before. Then on 25 January 2002, the Pentagon promptly conducted a sea-based NMD test in gross violation of Article 5(I) of the ABM Treaty without waiting for the required six months to expire, thus driving a proverbial nail into the coffin of the ABM Treaty before its body was even legally dead." [15]

Analysing the significance of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) transmitted to Congress on 8 January 2002, Professor Boyle emphasizes that while there may be "some itty-bitty `rogue states' lurking . . . in the Third World, . . . today the United States government has become the sole `rogue elephant' of international law and politics":

"[On] March 10, 2002 . . . defense analyst William Arkin revealed the leaked contents of the Bush Jr administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it had just transmitted to Congress on January 8. The Bush Jr administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the so-called "axis of evil" -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Libya and Syria; Russia and China, which are nuclear armed. This component of the Bush Jr NPR incorporates the Clinton administration's 1997 nuclear war-fighting plans against so-called "rogue states" set forth in Presidential Decision Directive 60. These warmed-over nuclear war plans targeting these five non-nuclear states [Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Syria] expressly violate the so-called "negative security assurances" given by the United States as an express condition for the renewal and indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by all of its non-nuclear weapons states parties in 1995." [16]

Professor Boyle cites relevant sections of Article 6 of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter and the Sixth Principle of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal,[17] adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950, to establish the context for his conclusion of what humanity now faces given the unprecedented rejection of the foundations of established international law with respect to the intentional use of nuclear weapons:

"Notice that both of these elemental sources of public international law clearly provide that the `planning' or `preparation' of a war in violation of international `assurances' such as the aforementioned US negative security assurance constitutes a Nuremberg Crime against Peace. Such is the Bush Jr NPR!" [18]

World War II's catastrophe of escalating conflict, which ushered in the nuclear age, prompted humanity for the first time to confront the prospect of man-made world annihilation in the span of a few hours. The body of international protocols and laws established in response to this unprecedented calamity sought to prevent such runaway trains from occurring. Today we are witnessing the concerted attempt to dismantle a fundamental core of this body of international law by Bush II. Whose interests are served by the intentional disintegration of the foundations and rule of international law? Tragically, there are recent historical precedents for what is now occurring.

 

Bush I:

Crimes Against Humanity, Rejection of the Rule of Law

On 16 January 1991, a heroic and historically informed call to account was launched by Congressperson Henry Gonzalez when he introduced his Resolution of Impeachment of President George Bush in the House of Representatives.[19]

Representative Gonzalez read into the congressional record five Articles of impeachment citing violations of the U.S. Constitution, federal law and the U.N. Charter including:

• that Bush, "by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq";
  
  
• violations of the Hague Conventions of 1907 and 1923, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, the Genocide Convention and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights by President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush who "prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war against Iraq employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the placement and potential use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by serial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians";
  
  
• Bush, who "committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law . . . embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis";
  
  
• Bush, who "planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, other international instruments and treaties, and the Constitution of the United States."

Like Senator Wayne Morse in 1964, Representative Henry Gonzalez in 1991 sought to challenge the contrived pursuit of war by Bush I and in doing so, to remain true to his oath of office, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as well as to uphold the principles of international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations charter cited above, is as relevant today as it was eleven and-a-half years ago:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

A vindication of the facts cited in Representative Gonzalez's articles of impeachment against President George Herbert Walker Bush was born out after Bush I's bombing war began on the same day, 16 January 1991 and continuing for an additional 42 days. An International Commission of Inquiry into United States war crimes committed during the Persian Gulf War conducted the largest independent world-wide investigation of war crimes in history. From May 1991 to February 1992 the Commission held 30 hearings across the U.S. and in twenty countries across five continents to expose the war crimes inflicted upon the People and State of Iraq by the United States.

On 29 February 1992 in New York City, two days before the International War Crimes Tribunal was convened to hear the evidence of the Commission, Professor Boyle presented a paper to an Albany Law School symposium titled "International War Crimes: The Search for Justice." This paper documents the numerous occasions that international laws were broken and disregarded during the Gulf War.[20] Quoting from near its conclusion:

"Today, the government in the United States of America constitutes an international criminal conspiracy under the NurembergCharter, Judgment and Principles, that is legally identical to the Nazi government in World War II Germany. The Defendants' wanton extermination of approximately 250,000 People in Iraq provides definite proof of the validity of this Nuremberg Proposition for the entire world to see. Indeed, Defendant Bush's so-called New World Order sounds and looks strikingly similar to the New Order proclaimed by Adolph Hitler over fifty years ago. You do not build a real New World Order with stealth bombers, Abrams tanks, and tomahawk cruise missiles. For their own good and the good of all humanity, the American People must condemn and repudiate Defendant Bush and his grotesque vision of a New World Order that is constructed upon warfare, bloodshed, violence and criminality." [21]

 

Since 1991, a World Trade Center's worth

of Iraqi children continue to die every month

Compared to what occurred over 11 years ago, the dangers today in the expanding quantum breakdown of adherence to the foundations of international law cannot be overstated. We must educate ourselves, friends, and acquaintances about what is being squandered in our name. Otherwise we become accessories after the fact to the destruction and death that threatens to engulf all life on earth.

This brings us to the central meaning of "Sanctions and War on Iraq: In 300 words".[22] What does it say about our society and culture that since 1991, a "World-Trade-Center's worth of Iraqi children continue to die every month" as a direct result of the crimes against humanity perpetrated under the direction of the last three Presidents of the United States? What does this fact mean to each and every person in this nation-state who pays annual taxes, the largest portion of which goes to the ongoing expansion of the United States military? As tax-paying members of the United States, can we reconcile our culpability for these Iraqi deaths with the deaths of people one year ago in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania?

Facing these questions is extremely difficult. But face and resolve them we must. As responsible citizens, confronting these questions does not compare with the experiences of the people who died on 9-11 and those who died throughout Iraq from 1991 to today.[23] As so frequently stated these days, "We will not forget", let us remember there is more to the story than only the events of 9-11.

Concerning the participation every tax-paying citizen of the United States has in the ever-expanding military budget, connecting with people working on challenging this situation makes a positive difference and offsets the misguided priorities of solving conflict by making war. The Pentagon receives about one-half of every dollar that Congress annually allocates. One Million Taxpayers for Peace focuses on encouraging participation to refuse and resist supporting expansion of the military and to add one's voice to those challenging the belief that war is a solution to problems. (See their summary of what our taxes pay for.[24])

The War Resisters League (WRL) "is committed not only to eliminating war, but the causes of war -- causes intricately linked to the violence that pervades our society". They recognize that "[h]uman survival depends on finding ways to negotiate and cooperate rather than continuing conflict through violence." The WRL "affirms that all war is a crime against humanity. We therefore are determined not to support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive nonviolently for the removal of all causes of war." Among other strategies, the WRL provides many educational resources including "U.S. Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 - Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes" (also as a 2-page PDF file), and a Peace Calendar with 52 True Stories of Nonviolent Successes: "In telling this world's stories, our media, our historians, our generals, and our politicians gravitate toward war. It is the rest of humanity that gravitates toward peace, and it is our stories that this calendar tells."

The Federation of American Scientists website furnishes a wealth of information much of which centers in a nexus named the Military Analysis Network (see also its immensely useful Site Index). The Council for a Livable World also provides many detailed references on U.S. Military Spending.

As seemingly insurmountable and intimidating may be the fear that "there's nothing I can do" about the great transformational events occurring now in the world, encouragement to act comes from knowing there are people who care, people who people stand up and speak out for what is right and true. Nelson Mandela's words on September 10th speaks directly to what needs to be said and addressed, clearly and without obfuscation.

"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world.

"That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. . . .

". . . Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction [by Iraq]. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white." [25]

Representative Ron Paul has just read into the Congressional Record 36 Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq in anticipation of hearings on the pending contrived war with Iraq.[26] It is heartening to see that the widespread paralysis a year ago of people in both in and out of Congress -- who did not challenge the Bush II subversion of constitutional liberties as well as respect for domestic and international law -- are recommitting themselves to the principles that this nation-state, in all its imperfections, was founded upon.

 

U.S. Development of Biological Weapons

Watch What We Say, Not What We Do

In April Professor Francis Boyle presented a faculty lecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on Bio- Warfare / Terrorism / Weapons.[27] In it he recounted how President Nixon and Henry Kissinger chose to end the U.S. offensive biological warfare program because these items cannot be controlled and the US had a massive superiority in nuclear weapons. The US became a party to the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 that prohibits research, development, testing of biological weapons, agents, components, etc., except for prophylactic and defensive purposes.

But as Professor Boyle notes, when the Reagan administration came to power, "I point out that many of the same people in the Reagan administration dealing with these issues are now back under Bush Jr". He also stated they "took the position that we were going to exploit our superior technology with respect to weapons across the board." In 1985 Professor Boyle was asked by the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) to participate in a Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill and "explain what was going on here, what the Reagan people really were up to and how dangerous this actually was." Then he was requested by CRG to

"draft the legislation to deal with this problem and in particular the abuse of DNA genetic engineering technology for biowarfare purposes. I worked in conjunction with the CRG scientists and we also worked with the biotech industry. At that time the biotech industry had no desire to get into biowarfare technology -- Monsanto and the others. So they supported our legislation.

"What happened? The Reagan administration fought it tooth and nail. They knew full well that my legislation was designed to stop what they were doing at the Pentagon. I made it very clear that research, development, testing of such biowarfare agents would be punished by life in prison. I do not believe in the death penalty for any reason so I did not put it in there. But it is in there now -- life in prison.

"What we did not know at that time when the Reagan people were fighting us tooth and nail is that they had also authorized at least forty shipments of weapons-specific biological agents to Iraq from the American Type Culture Collection, which is a big scientific institute. It has cultures for scientific purposes of every type of exotic disease in the world. You name it, it is there. It was clear the Reagan administration was shipping all this to Iraq knowing full well Iraq was going to develop biological weapons and use them against Iran, and yet they did it anyway. Now at the time my legislation was coming through we did not know this. It came out later. So we got nowhere with the legislation." [28]

After Bush Sr took office in 1993 all opposition to this legislation was stopped and, after being repackaged, it was adopted unanimously by both Houses of Congress, signed into law by the President who then wound down this program. However, by the time the program was stopped, serious damage had already been done by covertly shipping some of the biological agents developed under Reagan to Iraq. Since the close of World War II, and the institutionalizing of government secrecy codified in laws like the National Security Act of 1947, again and again we have seen the tragic results of officials of United States government policy seeking to shirk their constitutional oaths and responsibilities by hiding behind the mantle of unaccountability and deception. Fortunately, there are still moments when the veil is lifted, and we are able to see how our government actually operates.

Just this month, Senator Robert Byrd read into the congressional record the full text of a September 23rd Newsweek article by Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, "How Saddam Happened". At the same time Senator Byrd asked Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sewn?" Rumsfeld's dissembling and obfuscated responses were a classic example of how government officials strive to deny any accountability for prior actions, the very antithesis of a democratic and free society in action.

At one point, Byrd crystalized a central tenet of constitutional government that Bush II consistently rejects and strives to ignore: "The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy." The venality and contempt for democratic processes of open information and honest government conduct by officials occupying significant positions of authority like Rumsfeld, is a tragic and deeply disturbing fact of the life of our time.[29]

"[T]o get back to the biological agents shipped to Iraq. As you know in the fall of 1990 as we were going to war against Iraq, Bush and Cheney ordered all U.S. armed forces to take experimental medical vaccines for anthrax and botulin. I had no idea why but the reason why was very simple. It came out later. Under Reagan they had shipped these biological agents to Iraq, Iraq had weaponized them, and we knew full well our troops would be vulnerable. So using some of the same technologies, we put these experimental medical vaccines into our own troops, 500,000 of them. Today they suffer from the Gulf War Syndrome. The Pentagon still denies it, but it is a lie.

"Indeed, I worked over in Britain on an expose there, The Dirty War, a documentary film. Finally the British government admitted there is such a thing as the Gulf War Syndrome. I personally believe they go back to these vaccines. They were experimental medical vaccines in violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation. I argued this point in the court martial proceedings of Captain Doctor Yolanda Huett-Vaughn, who was court martialed in part for refusing to give these vaccines. And later Senator Jay Rockefeller held hearings in which he also accused Bush, Cheney and Powell of committing a Nuremberg crime on our own troops. Today approximately a minimum of 50,000 U.S. military personnel suffer from what is called the Gulf War Syndrome. The tip off here is that the French Army rejected the vaccines because they knew they were experimental. . . .

"Then what happened? For some reason, in the last two years of the Clinton administration, Clinton decided to get back into this dual-use biological warfare work. And again began putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the stuff, to again research and develop every known exotic disease one could think of, developing the components that then get turned over to the Pentagon where they could be assembled into weapons. This is going on as we speak now.

"Finally, the New York Times broke the story. Yes, the United States government is violating the Biological Weapons Convention. The CIA operation Bacchus. We are developing an immune resistant strain of anthrax with DNA genetic engineering. We have developed super weapons-grade anthrax in quantities and strengths that have no legitimate defensive purpose at all. We had a bomb factory down there where we are simulating the production of biological agents. It is very clear that we are now back into the business of research and development of biological agents, in clear cut violation of the Biological Weapons Convention and my statute the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act of 1989.

"That then is why the Bush Jr. administration repudiated the verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention. These negotiations had been underway for quite some time. The Convention has no verification provisions. Finally, this fall all of a sudden out of nowhere, Bush Jr. repudiated the whole thing and tried to kill it. Why? Because it is clear we are involved in this type of work. Whether through the Pentagon, the CIA, or their contractors, or all of them." [30]

Last May a news release by The Sunshine Project (a non-profit dedicated to providing research and facts about biological weapons and biotechnology) announced "US Armed Forces Push for Offensive Biological Weapons Development". Its information sheds significant light on omissions by Bush II officials about the threat of biological weapons.

"The uncovering of these proposals for an offensive biological weapons program comes at a critical political juncture. The US has rejected a legally-binding system of United Nations inspections of suspected biological weapons facilities. At the same time, the Bush administration is aggressively accusing other countries of developing biological weapons and expanding its so-called `Axis of Evil' based in large part on allegations of foreign biological weapons development.

"But it is increasingly apparent that there are serious questions about the United States' own compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). While US allegations against other countries are generally undocumented, the proposals described in this press release were recently released to the Sunshine Project under the Freedom of Information Act and have been placed on the internet for independent analysis.

"Explicitly for Offense: In the murky world of biological weapons research, many technologies are `dual use', that is, they have both offensive and peaceful applications. The alleged transfer of dual use technologies, such as vaccine research, is a basis of charges made against Cuba on May 6th by US Under Secretary of State John Bolton. The US armed forces documents released here, however, are not about `dual use' technology, they are explicit proposals for offensive weaponsmaking.

"According to the Naval Research Laboratory, `It is the purpose of the proposed research to capitalize on the degradative potential of . . . naturally occurring microorganisms, and to engineer additional, focused degradative capabilities into [genetically modified microorganisms], to produce systems that will degrade the warfighting capabilities of potential adversaries.' The Air Force proposes `genetically engineered catalysts made by bacteria that destroy . . . Catalysts can be engineered to destroy whatever war material is desired.' The proposals indicate these weapons might be used by all the armed forces, including the Special Forces and in peacekeeping and anti-narcotics operations (See the Resources Page for copies of these documents)

"Additional Documents Suppressed: These proposals are probably only the tip of the iceberg. For over one year, the Marine Corps has delayed response to a Sunshine Project Freedom of Information Act request that now includes 147 unclassified documents. The two proposals described here are part of a recent first release of 8 items from that request. 139 related legal and weapons development documents are unreleased. The Marine Corps says the delay is due to a lack of manpower.

"The National Academies are also suppressing related documents. As part of the Marine Corps-commissioned study, in 2001 at least 77 apparently chemical and biological weapons-related documents were deposited in the NAS Public Access Records File, a library open for inspection and copying by all persons (see a bibliography here). After the Sunshine Project requested copies of these documents on March 12th 2002, the National Academies placed a `security hold' on the public file. High-ranking NAS officials have refused to explain who ordered the hold, or to offer a credible explanation as to why it exists (see correspondence here). The Sunshine Project believes that NAS is under pressure from high-ranking US officials to “Enron” the public record to avoid release of politically sensitive material. Rather than assist a purge of the public record, NAS -- a leading US non-profit scientific body -- must condemn and release the proposals for illegal weapons that is has received.

"Legal Implications: The research proposed by the Air Force and Navy raises serious legal questions. Under the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, development of biological weapons, including those that attack materials, is subject to federal criminal and civil penalties. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which the US and 143 other countries have ratified, prohibits development, acquisition, and stockpiling of any biological agents not justifiable for peaceful or prophylactic purposes. There is no such justification for the offensive research proposed by the Navy and Air Force. The proposals are certain to weigh heavily on all countries’ minds as they prepare for November’s reconstituted 5th Review Conference of the BTWC." [31]

As has been the case for decades, when suppression of information is justified under the cloak of "national security," or, as described above, "politically sensitive material," it usually turned out to be a cover for illicit or criminal activity.

The United States has rejected a legally-binding system of United Nations inspections of suspected U.S. biological weapons facilities while at the same time accusing other countries -- including Iraq -- of developing biological weapons. Simultaneously, the United States armed forces, in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, is actively pushing for offensive biological weapons development, despite the fact such activity is illegal and subject to federal criminal and civil penalties.

Professor Boyle and Nelson Mandela speak truth to power when they state it is the United States that is the threat to peace as does the Friends Committee on National Legislation when they summarize this concern:

"The events of September 11 did not involve nuclear or biological weapons, though the events did raise legitimate concerns about possible future use of such weapons. But the Administration, with help from many in Congress, is turning the U.S. away from international cooperation in arms control and disarmament that could reduce such threats. U.S. and global security are diminished as a result." [32]

Concerning the anthrax attacks last fall, Professor Boyle addressed the issue of who had the means by pointing out that the "technology behind the Daschle letter, and later the Leahy letter, was very sophisticated."

"Trillion spores per gram. That is super-weapons grade. Second, tied in there was a special treatment to eliminate electrostatic charges so it would float in the air. You have to have special equipment, special treatment, special everything.

"The only people who would have the capability to do this would be individuals who either are currently employed by the Department of Defense or the CIA doing biowarfare work, or had been employed by the Department of Defense or the CIA doing biowarfare work. And would probably have access to one of the government's biowarfare labs. This stuff is so dangerous. You could not do it unless you were wearing one of these space suits. And there are only a handful of these labs in the country.

"That very day I called up a senior official in the FBI who handles terrorism and counter-terrorism, he knows who I am because of the work I have done in this field, and discussed this matter with him. I said: Look there are very few people who have this capability. I have a list of them under the Reagan administration. That is where you have to start to look. I went down the list and said, This person worked with this government lab, that person worked with that government lab, etc., etc. He said, We are coordinating our efforts with Ft. Deitrick. I said, Ft. Deitrick could very well be the problem here. They are one of the few labs with the capability to do something like this. And you could have a Timothy McVeigh type situation where someone who was once on the reservation is now off the reservation. So you need to start looking at this list of these people who have worked with the Pentagon. I do not have a list of the CIA people, and my guess is you are going to find your person. He told me he would pass the information along to the right people.

"This was just before I ran the CRG workshop at Harvard on Biowarfare the first weekend in November. There my colleague Jonathan King, Professor of Microbiology at MIT and the head of their electron-microscope lab, publicly stated the same exact conclusion independently of me. He had reached the exact same conclusion that I had. Likewise Dr. Barbara Rosenberg who is now with the Federation of American Scientists, independent of both King and me later reached the exact same conclusion: that whoever did this was working for the United States government now, in the Pentagon or the CIA or had in the immediate past, and must have had access to a U.S. biowarfare lab." [33]

Back in the early 1970s Nixon and Kissinger chose to end the U.S. offensive biological warfare program for the essential reason that these items cannot be controlled. When people are able to work within a system of legally-sanctioned secrecy pursuing programs that would never survive the light of public scrutiny and inclusive debate, the result is precisely what we have seen and are seeing: a steady, continuing erosion of global security for all. The rejection of international cooperation in arms control and disarmament that seeks to reduce such global threats as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons -- which Bush II is pursuing with frightening determination -- does not serve the needs of humanity and our Earth. Who truly benefits from the renunciation of such international cooperation?

 

Domestic Terrorism: The "USA PATRIOT Act" of 2001

Serial Assaults on Constitutional Liberties

Such double standards as U.S. government policies on the planning and preparation for first-strike nuclear war, offensive biological weapons, and aggressive Iraq -- where disdain and disrespect for the rule of law is blatantly exercised -- tragically comprise only part of the assault upon world peace now being fomented and directed by Bush II.

Domestically as well as internationally, dissembling has become rampant among official pronouncements from Washington since 9-11. According to Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), members of the House were not able to get printed copies of the "PATRIOT Act of 2001", passed last October, to read before voting on it:

"It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." [34]

The FNCL again identifies the nature of what is being done in our name but against the fundamental tenets of our constitutional system of law and civilian protections against unwarranted government intrusion into our personal and private lives:

"The events of September 11 did not destroy the Bill of Rights. But the USA-Patriot Act and the continuing maneuvers of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Ashcroft threaten to turn the U.S. into a permanent security state. . . .

"The events of September 11 did not damage the constitutional system of checks and balances nor public accountability. But constitutional protections and democratic government are under great threat from an Administration that seeks to aggrandize power and from members of Congress who are both reluctant to exercise legitimate oversight and eager to strip the courts of their responsibility for oversight." [35]

There has been much written about the anti-constitutional basis of Attorney General Ashcroft's reactionary and anti-constitutional "PATRIOT Act" as well as subsequent unilateral anti-civil liberties measures such as the monitoring of lawyer-client conversations in federal prisons, unleashing the FBI on the American public, and approving such devices as the Magic Lantern, which allows the FBI to secretly record one's every computer keystroke. Kelly O'Meara wrote last November about our new "Police State":

"If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill -- a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks." [36]

An attached list of materials has been compiled concerning the array of dangers posed to people in the United States by the "PATRIOT Act." [37]

"Repeal the USA Patriot Act" by Jennifer Van Bergen is an article in six parts, exemplary for its elucidation of the wide range of serial assaults on constitutional liberties through mechanisms now defined and on the legal books in the U.S. An excerpt from Part I provides an understanding of what we are now up against:

"The USA Patriot Act . . . should be called the Constitution Shredding Act. In particular, it utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws. . . . [D]espite the fact that the USA Patriot Act was passed hastily without any debate or hearings and under a cloak of fear, its provisions were obviously very carefully thought out and crafted to take power out of the hands of courts and ensure absolute lack of oversight of law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

"There is no way that the USA Patriot Act came into existence solely in response to September 11th. In fact, it is clear from prior legislative and case history that law enforcement and intelligence have been trying for many years to obtain these powers. It is only the unreasoning `bunker mentality' that followed September 11th that allowed its planners to pass it.

"Indeed, one might question whether Congress could sincerely have intended this Act, given that portions of it are re-enactments of the 1996 anti-terrorism laws which had been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. . . . Most troubling is that most of these powers do little to increase the ability of law enforcement or intelligence to bring terrorists to justice -- but, they do much to undermine the Constitution and violate the rights of both immigrants and American citizens alike."

A summary of the six parts conveys more of what this article examines and explains:

• Part I states briefly why we should demand the immediate repeal or amendment of the USA Patriot Act.
• Part II looks back in time to look at two acts, which were also passed hastily and in a time of fear. The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 parallel the USA Patriot Act in many respects, and offer some important warnings.
• Part III discusses the recent emergence of troubling evidence of violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act, and looks at the disturbing possibility of torture being used.
• Part IV covers how sections of the Act mixes criminal law and foreign intelligence work, puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans, allows law enforcement to enter your home without you knowing it, and can track your emails and internet activity.
• Part V discusses how the sections of the Act punishes some people for engaging in innocent First Amendment associational activity, violates other civil rights of immigrants, uses secret evidence, curbs judicial oversight, and invades financial and student records.
• Part VI discusses national security concerns, sums up, and closes with a potent exhortation to Americans, made over 200 years ago by Senator Edward Livingston.[38]

One of the most tangible and disturbing threats to our constitutional system of liberties posed by the "PATRIOT Act" is a return to the era of domestic spying and counter intelligence exemplified by the FBI's COINTELPRO programs conducted against American citizens. Committed to the web-as-library paradigm, Paul Wolf has assembled a reading room area in the virtual stacks focusing on the history and consequences of COINTELPRO at www.cointel.org:

COINTELPRO is an acronym for the FBI's domestic "counterintelligence programs" to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations.

The origins of COINTELPRO were rooted in the Bureau's operations against hostile foreign intelligence services. Counterintelligence, of course, goes beyond investigation; it refers to actions taken to neutralize enemy agents.

"Counterintelligence" was a misnomer for the FBI programs, since the targets were American political dissidents, not foreign spies. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, the American Communist Party was viewed as a serious threat to our national security. Over the years, anti-Communist paranoia extended to civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups. As John Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI, put it

The forces which are most anxious to weaken our internal security are not always easy to identify. Communists have been trained in deceit and secretly work toward the day when they hope to replace our American way of life with a Communist dictatorship. They utilize cleverly camouflaged movements, such as peace groups and civil rights groups to achieve their sinister purposes. While they as individuals are difficult to identify, the Communist party line is clear. Its first concern is the advancement of Soviet Russia and the godless Communist cause. It is important to learn to know the enemies of the American way of life.

Although today this may sound ridiculous, the implications were deadly serious for the thousands of people who became COINTELPRO targets. After many years of investigating and disrupting these groups, the Bureau could not find evidence that any of them were foreign-controlled.

These programs were exposed to the public following an unsolved break-in into the FBI's Media, PA resident agency, separate lawsuits by NBC correspondent Carl Stern and the Socialist Workers' Party, and then a US Senate investigation led by Senator Frank Church. Although the FBI's COINTELPRO's officially ended in 1971, there have been many examples of counterintelligence-type operations against political dissidents since.

Lest anyone think we are not again deeply into a resurgence and resurrection of that era's nightmarish police-state tactics against such supposedly sacred rights as freedom of thought and freedom of speech, consider the corrosive effects already being discovered by the establishment of heretofore unimaginable secrecy and surveillance operations now under consolidation by Bush II:

Secrecy Cloaks Patriot Act:
Administration Loath to Spell Out How Law Being Used
by Frank Davies, Seattle Times, 9/9/02
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0909-03.htm

"Ten months after it was passed because of the Sept. 11 attacks, the USA Patriot Act remains shrouded in complexity and secrecy. The legislation, overwhelmingly approved by Congress after the White House demanded new tools to prevent the next terrorist assault, resulted in the largest expansion of police powers in decades. Yet Americans know little about it, Congress is having difficulty getting questions answered, and Bush administration officials won't say how it has been used. . . .

"The CIA and FBI for the first time ever are allowed to mix foreign intelligence with law enforcement on U.S. soil. Citing the act, Attorney General John Ashcroft also authorized FBI agents to spy on domestic groups without having to show evidence of a crime. The legislation is an amalgam of changes to dozens of federal statutes in 300 subject areas. Businesses, libraries, colleges and Internet service providers still have lawyers and consultants scurrying to decipher how they are affected. . . .

"`What's really dangerous is this administration is using these powers with the attitude that because this is a war, it's not really the business of Congress, or in some cases, the courts,' said Susan Herman, a constitutional law professor at Brooklyn Law School. Bush officials defend the legislation. They say it has helped foil terrorist plots and has been used carefully. But they won't provide details.

"There is no doubt the act is wide-ranging. The Treasury Department recently announced rules that tighten requirements on all financial institutions to check the identity of their customers and whether they appear on lists of terrorist groups and to report "suspicious activity." The act also reduces privacy in libraries and threatens state confidentiality laws that protect book and computer use. Federal agents can easily obtain warrants to review a patron's reading and computer habits. Under the law, a librarian cannot disclose the request for records."

Now They Check the Books You Read
by Joan E. Bertin, Newsday, 9/16/02
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-06.htm

"Among the less well-known aspects of the Patriot Act are provisions permitting the Justice Department to obtain information secretly from booksellers and librarians about customers' and patrons' reading, Internet and book-buying habits, merely by alleging that the records are relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation. The act prohibits librarians and booksellers from disclosing these subpoenas, so the objects of investigation don't know and therefore cannot defend themselves and their privacy, or contest the government's actions in court.

"In a sample of 1,000 libraries responding to a survey last February, 85 reported receiving requests to turn over information about patrons to police or FBI agents. We have no way to know how many other libraries, and how many booksellers, received similar requests. We don't know how many requests were made under the Patriot Act, because of its secrecy provisions. What we do know is that the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain information secretly from librarians and booksellers about customers' and patrons' interests and activities, and that law enforcement officials are seeking such information. The Justice Department has refused to provide any data about these investigations, even to Congress.

"Librarians and booksellers have voiced their dismay at being conscripted, under court order and threat of prosecution, to report covertly on their patrons and customers. Secretly obtaining information about what people read, to try to figure out what they think, undermines more than privacy; it threatens core First Amendment principles, as many librarians and booksellers understand.

"The Constitution clearly protects the right to read a book, embrace an idea or express a thought -- even an unpopular or `unpatriotic' book, idea or thought. The freedom of thought and expression is so fundamental to our democracy that, as the Supreme Court recently noted, the ``government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed `at some indefinite future time'.'' In so holding, the court relied on the `vital distinction between words and deed, between ideas and conduct.' In other words, the government is free to prohibit and punish illegal conduct, but may not criminalize ideas or punish people for their thoughts. Perversely, under the Patriot Act, reading certain books or researching certain topics -- both constitutionally protected activities -- now apparently provide grounds for criminal investigation.

"The Justice Department's recent decision to repeal the domestic terrorism surveillance guidelines unmistakably sends this signal. The guidelines were adopted in 1976 in response to revelations that, under the infamous COINTELPRO (`counterintelligence') program, civil rights and anti-war activists who were neither accused nor suspected of crimes became targets of government investigation because of their outspoken criticism of government policies. To prevent such abuses, the 1976 guidelines authorized surveillance of political, religious and other groups only if there was actual evidence of criminal activity. Without this restriction, covert surveillance of political dissidents with no known connection to criminal activity is bound to resume.

"According to a brief recently filed by the Justice Department in defense of secret immigration hearings, the `First Amendment creates no general right of access to government information or operations.' The gag order imposed on librarians and booksellers goes even further in withholding information from the object of an investigation. As a result, proceedings under the act will be shrouded in secrecy, not only making it impossible for targeted individuals to counter the government's allegations, but also preventing the public at large from making an informed judgment about whether the government is effectively countering terrorism or unfairly targeting innocent people.

"The rush to enact programs with reassuring-sounding names may have been understandable a year ago. Now, however, it would be patriotic to consider whether, despite their appealing acronyms, some hastily enacted programs threaten the freedoms we value most. It is peculiar, to say the least, for our government to fight terrorists by adopting their techniques -- secrecy and intimidation. Besides, exactly how many terrorists does the FBI expect to find through the local library or the bookstore?"

Joan E. Bertin is executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.

Statement of James X. Dempsey Deputy Director
Center for Democracy & Technology
before the House Committee on the Judiciary
Forum on National Security and the Constitution, 1/24/02
http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/020124dempsey.shtml

"COINTELPRO had several key characteristics: It was intended to be absolutely secret. Its tactics were never meant to see the light of day. The FBI assumed that its conclusions about individuals would never be tested by the adversarial process. COINTELPRO was not aimed at arresting those planning criminal conduct. The FBI knew that if a black bag job uncovered evidence of a crime, that information could not be used as the basis for an arrest and indictment. COINTELPRO was at base an intelligence operation cut loose from the guidance of the criminal code: it focused not on the investigation of crimes but on collecting information about legal activity. The program relied on guilt by association. Success was defined in part by how large a net could be cast, how many people could be identified as adherents of a group or movement or ideology. And in the end, one of the most important facts about COINTELPRO is this: the exercise was essentially worthless from a security standpoint. Millions of dollars were expended investigating non-violent activity."

Ashcroft Watch - The Terror of Pre-Crime
by Nat Hentoff, The Progressive, September 2002
http://www.progressive.org/sept02/hen0902.html

"John Ashcroft recently released his guidelines for investigating people he suspects as terrorists, and these guidelines exceed even J. Edgar Hoover's contempt for due process. . . .

"On page four of the Ashcroft Guidelines: `The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal intelligence investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts.' (Emphasis added.)

"The Attorney General, furthermore, extends the dragnet to make individuals in a group under suspicion responsible for what other members say or write: `A group's activities and the statements of its members may properly be considered in conjunction with each other. A combination of statements and activities may justify a determination that the threshold standard for a terrorism investigation is satisfied, even if the statements alone or the activities alone would not warrant such a determination.' (Emphasis added.) . . .

"Keep in mind the massive, pervasive electronic surveillance -- with minimal judicial supervision under the USA Patriot Act -- of inferential `pre-crime' conversations and messages, both sent and received. Add to that the FBI's power, under the same law, to break into your home or office, with a warrant, while you're not there, and inset `The Magic Lantern' into your computer to record every one of your keystrokes, including those not sent. Then add the Patriot Act's allowing the FBI to command bookstores and libraries to reveal the books bought or read by potential domestic terrorists.

"You may now appreciate the prophecy of Senator Frank Church -- who was instrumental in exposing the constitutional crimes of J. Edgar Hoover's Cointelpro operation -- when he said in 1975 that future government intelligence capabilities could `at any time be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left -- such is the capacity to monitor everything, telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter.' And that was before the omnivorous, permeable Internet. The Web can be a spider web.

"Senator Church, referring to `potential' enemies of the state, warned: `There would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know.'

"There is still time to fight back."

It is both chilling and inspiring to see what the American Library Association (ALA) now presents on its web site about the "PATRIOT Act" and how it is affecting rights to privacy and confidentiality. The Office for Intellectual Freedom page provides a good entry point into issues involving intellectual freedom, censorship, the freedom to read, and a host of other concerns relevant to the "PATRIOT Act," government surveillance and secrecy.

Fulfilling its purpose of providing the means to educate and inform one's self, Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights provides a wealth of information in a 3-page document. It affirms that

"[i]n a library (physical or virtual), the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others. Confidentiality exists when a library is in possession of personally identifiable information about users and keeps that information private on their behalf. . . The ALA has affirmed a right to privacy since 1939. Existing ALA policies affirm that confidentiality is crucial to freedom of inquiry. Rights to privacy and confidentiality also are implicit in the Library Bill of Rights guarantee of free access to library resources for all users." (http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/Intellectual_Freedom3/Statements_and_Policies/Intellectual_Freedom2/Interpretations/Privacy.htm)

A section on "FBI in Your Library" includes extremely relevant quotes such as "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us," Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Other sections include the "ALA Policy on Government Intimidation," information on "The Attorney General's Guidelines," "In the News," links and more.

"Confidentiality and Coping with Law Enforcement Inquiries: Guidelines for the Library and its Staff" includes a very detailed and sobering description of "Recommended Procedures for Law Enforcement Visits" covering the contingencies for:

• "Before any visit",
• "During the visit",
• "If the court order is in the form of a subpoena",
• "If the court order is in the form of a search warrant",
• "If the court order is a search warrant issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (USA Patriot Act amendment)", and
• "After the visit".

People now working in public libraries must feel something similar to what their counterparts experienced in Germany in the middle and later 1930s.

 

Domestic Terrorism: Homeland Security

Paving the Way for Our Constitutional Dictatorship

It is not only the "PATRIOT Act" that threatens the United States Bill of Rights and on which the liberties this nation-state was founded. Attorney General Ashcroft, the leading law enforcement officer in the land, is singularly engaged in an unprecedented assault on constitutional liberties. Although General Ashcroft's TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) domestic spy system -- which would have had more spies at the start of operations than Joseph Stalin or the Nazi SS dreamed about -- appears to be dead, there are a number of indications that he is involved with preparations that could lead to the declaration of martial law and the implementation of internment camps for "enemy citizens."

John Dean, former Counsel to President Nixon, considered the potential for martial law in his 7 June 2002 column, "PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY: Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator?"

"Congress has the power to determine whether it wants the American equivalent of a constitutional dictator in the White House. The only way to be certain that we don't make that decision during a crisis, is to revise and codify our emergency laws now -- before fear and anger in the aftermath of a possible attack might cause us to make bad decisions, and too easily trade liberty for security in numerous areas.

"As I write this column, President Bush has announced that he will address the nation about his plans for restructuring the government for fighting the war on terrorism. None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before. With the President's announcement, it is not too soon to consider whether, in fighting terrorism, we really want a constitutional dictator to lead us. I certainly don't, nor do I know anyone who does, but if a future attack comes, and is devastating, the pressure to resort to constitutional dictatorship may be irresistible." [39]

An essential component of any move to suspend the constitution is the creation of a new Executive branch Department of Homeland Security which, as Representative Ron Paul (Texas) has observed, "represents the biggest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, and potentially the single biggest expansion of the federal government in our history."

With the coming of the Department of Homeland Security, Bush II has stepped up its onslaught on constitutional liberties with increasing focus on changing the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which for more than a century has kept the U.S. military out of local law enforcement.[40] The history of this law, and how "Congress has deliberately eroded this principle by involving the military in drug interdiction at our borders" is presented in an extensive 1997 paper by the Washington University Law Quarterly.[41]

"The Posse Comitatus Act [Latin for `power of the county'] criminalizes, effectively prohibiting, the use of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus[+] to execute the laws of the United States. It reads:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[++]

"Though a criminal law, the PCA has a more important role as a statement of policy that embodies `the traditional Anglo-American principle of separation of military and civilian spheres of authority, one of the fundamental precepts of our form of government.'" [+++]

In July, Congress established the Office and Department of Homeland Security, a new Executive Branch cabinet position that mimics the National Security Council. This is something that has been in the works for a number of years. One of the first recommendations of Tom Ridge, the new head of this mammoth organization, has been to call for a re-examination of the Posse Comitatus Act.[42] Representative Ron Paul wrote about "The Homeland Security Non-Debate" in his July 27th weekly column:

"Late Friday evening, after only a few short hours of debate, Congress passed legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security. The new department represents the biggest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, and potentially the single biggest expansion of the federal government in our history. Over 175,000 federal employees will be part of the new DHS, and if history is any guide, it will take decades to get all of them working together even marginally. In fact, some estimate that the process of buying and leasing new offices, moving existing offices, and getting all of the new DHS personnel using the same computer and phone systems could take twenty years. So much for streamlining the intelligence gathering process.

"Every American should know how quickly and thoughtlessly this massive new bureaucracy is being created. A special House committee made up of just a handful of members began writing the bill only one week before the vote. In that short time they managed to transform the President's 50 page proposal for consolidation of certain agencies into a 250 page spending spree filled with unnecessary provisions to satisfy scores of special interests. Most members did not see the final bill until Wednesday, nor did they see many of the 100+ amendments to the bill until Friday. The House debated the body of the bill itself late Thursday night for only two hours! This may serve the interests of members looking to highlight their `accomplishments' at election time, but the American people deserve far more serious consideration of possibly the most important legislation passed during their lifetimes. Without question, the new DHS will have a profound impact on the freedom, prosperity, and safety of every American and their grandchildren for decades to come.

"I did vote for several amendments to the bill that would maintain the strength and independence of federal agencies that are vitally important to the 14th congressional district in Texas. However, I voted a resounding NO on final passage. This legislation will have an even greater negative impact than the terrible "PATRIOT Act" passed shortly after September 11th."[43]

Thus, possibly the most important legislation passed during our lifetimes with even greater negative impact than the "PATRIOT Act" is being adopted for the expediency of winning re-election. And just who are the people assuming positions of authority in the chain-of-command hierarchy of this appointed-by-the President Department? John Stanton, a Virginia-based writer on national security affairs, wrote this month about "Homeland Security Department - Another Production from the Real Shadow Government" and how it has "its genesis in defense and security study `think tanks' in Washington, DC."

"These groups wield enormous influence on local, state and national policy and arguably constitute the real shadow government of the United States. Eliminate the US Congress, Presidency and Supreme Court, and the three branches of government could just as well be the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security and the Center for Security Policy. Add the Institute for Defense Analysis as a place for the "nonprofit" government to hold "classified" meetings and most Americans would probably not notice any substantial difference. . . .

"As reported by CounterPunch, Tom Ridge, apparently one of the folks fitting the above description, and current Homeland Security Czar (with an unsettling resemblance to Fox's Simpson cartoon character Chief Wiggam) -- recently telegraphed what Homeland Security's more sinister functions may become. One of them is union busting. Ridge made a telephone call to the International Longshoremen Workers Union warning them that any large scale strike contemplated against Pacific Maritime will be viewed as a threat to national security. A veiled threat of police action and subsequent arrest if there ever was one. Finally, CounterPunch reported that a Phoenix Project (an assassination program in Vietnam) operative, Major General Bruce Lawlor (USA), will play a key role in US Homeland Security prevention and protection.

"And so it's just these types of folks who will be recruited for and make up the US Department of Homeland Security and its affiliates at the state and local levels. The prospect of a national internal security agency staffed by such people should be the stuff of a national debate." [44]

The tide is rising in the quest by some to replace liberty with security. Benjamin Franklin's maxim, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" [45] is being played out in such a grand scale today, it is difficult to believe the promise of this nation-state's basis of constitutional liberties founded on the individual can survive and be resurrected rather than defaulting to the police state being pursued by Bush II. As long as there are those who endeavor to renew this government of and by and for the people, it is our obligation to join them and continue using our wits and gifts to contribute to this work. A selection of other articles on this brand new, highly significant national internal security agency is included in the footnotes.[46]

 

How the War on Terrorism Affects Access

to Information and the Public's Right to Know

The need for accurate, detailed, and complete information about the changes occurring in the fabric and texture of our political and security landscape is critical. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has just released the second edition of their white paper, "Homefront Confidential, How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public's Right to Know." [47] This invaluable report details the increasingly dangerous risks posed by the suppression of information. Excerpts from the Foreword include:

"We live in a nation built on the concept of balance. When the government, with the best of intentions, goes too far in its efforts to shield information from the public, it is up to the public and the media to push back. Through a vibrant, information-based democratic process in our legislatures and through an independent judiciary, we as a society will come to a balance that hopefully will protect our liberties for generations to come.

"The Reporters Committee's Homefront Confidential `White Paper' was first published in March 2002. This second edition published on the first anniversary of September 11 incorporates a threat assessment to the public's right to know based on the color-coded scheme used by the Department of Homeland Security. Just as the government assesses threats to the nation's security, this report assesses how government actions have affected the media's ability to provide information to the public.

"We believe the public's right to know is severely threatened in the areas of changes to freedom of information laws, war coverage and access to terrorism and immigration proceedings. This report describes in detail why the public should be concerned about the information it is not getting." [48]

Also available as a 66-page PDF file, this report is essential reading to educate our selves, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, on the dangers we face with the concerted and expanding moves by U.S. government officials to limit, control, and/or stop the flow of information, a core element of any free society. It includes a four-page chronology of events listing 91 days of news over the past year that identify key issues regarding information access. This is followed by eight chapters identified with threat levels (indicating Severe risk to a free press, High risk to a free press, etc.) and color codes based on those created by the Department of Homeland Security.

	Covering the war Despite improvements in access to battlefields abroad in the United States' war on terrorism, military officials continue to keep journalists at a long arm's length from the action. The result: A war carried on in the name of the American people with the possibility of little public accountability either now or in years to come.
	Military tribunals A year after the September 11 attacks, the United States has yet to initiate a military tribunal. But the paperwork and guidelines are in place. And open government advocates worry that should the White House embark on the tribunal option to try suspected terrorists, another casualty would be openness.
	Access to terrorism & immigration proceedings Traditionally, hearings involving immigrants and material witnesses operated under a presumption of openness. But post-September 11, secrecy stands as the default status for access, making it difficult -- if not impossible -- for the American public and the press to learn about detainees and material witnesses.
	Domestic coverage After facing sporadic restrictions on domestic newsgathering after September 11, reporters stateside have enjoyed mostly restraint-free coverage in the last few months.
	The reporter's privilege A recent court decision and the development of a national terrorism watch program heighten worries that law enforcement and judges might become more likely to treat journalists as government agents.
	The USA PATRIOT Act It is still unclear how or when the FBI's expanded wiretapping powers will affect journalists, but the Justice Department has shown that it intends to use its powers aggressively, notwithstanding a rare public rebuke by a secret court that almost always approves the department's warrant requests.
	Freedom of Information Federal FOI Act officers now act under directions from the Attorney General to give strong consideration to exemptions before handing out information, and from the White House to protect "sensitive but unclassified" information. Federal Web sites have come down. And a measure to protect "homeland security" records could be passed soon.
	The rollback in state openness A number of states jumped into the legislative fray soon after September 11, but many of the more severe proposals died before a vote or were modified to accommodate access concerns.

Direct and unfettered public access to government information is critical to the vitality of a free society. Bush II has a propensity for secrecy and obfuscation. On 1 November 2001, Bush Jr. signed Executive Order 13233, which violated the 1978 Presidential Records Act (PRA). The PRA was passed in 1978 as a response to President Nixon's attempt to control access to his documents and the infamous Watergate tape recordings. It decreed that the records of presidents and vice-presidents are public property, and must be made available to historians, journalists and the public no later than twelve years after the president or vice-president leaves office. This Executive Order halted the pending release to the public of some 68,000 pages of records of former President Ronald Reagan, which should have been released in January 2001, twelve years after President Reagan left office. Much has been written about how Bush Jr.'s move prevents knowledge of more of the classified facts of Reagan's eight years including the constitutional crises known as Iran Contra, while Bush Sr. was Vice President.

The Freedom to Read Foundation (organized by the American Library Association in 1969) provides an educational entry point into the Freedom of Information Act, an essential tool in the struggle for freedom of information, freedom of expression, and other first amendment rights in our age of increasingly secretive governance. Established in 1958, the Freedom of Information Center serves the general public and the media on questions regarding access to government documents and information. The FoI Center and its founders were central to the effort to enact the national Freedom of Information Act. The FoI Center is part of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, and supports its mission of providing an independent voice to protect the public's right to know.

 

Domestic Terrorism: General Ashcroft's

"Enemy Citizens," Martial Law and Internment Camps

One of General Ashcroft's campaigns that has received a minimum of coverage in the press are efforts to set up detention and internment camps in the United States as part of preparations for the possibility of declaring martial law. This past summer, journalist Ritt Goldstein wrote two articles -- "Foundations are in place for martial law in the US" and "Internment Camps and Authoritarian US Fast Becoming Reality" [49] -- that detail how "democratic freedoms which have long defined American life are under seige."

This goes back to President Jimmy Carter's creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through Executive Order 12148 in 1979. While FEMA's charter originally called for planning and training activities concerning "natural disasters, nuclear war, the possibility of enemy attack on U.S. territory, and incidents involving domestic civil unrest," it was with the advent of the Reagan era in 1981 that FEMA's scope was augmented to be a "national emergency" entity, headed by a federal "emergency czar".[50]

"The birth of FEMA's dark side originated in secret during the Reagan administration. FEMA's domestic disaster management role was then broadened to allow it to practice for the imposition of martial law and the internment of so-called aliens and radicals. During this period, a joint exercise was held with the military to prepare for such a contingency, Rex-84. Concurrently, FEMA began assembling files on those whom the Agency might target. . . . The exercise's purpose was to test military capabilities in anticipation of `civil disturbances, major demonstrations', incidentally illustrating the evolution of civil defense into civil control." [51]

After a period of abuse of power, culminating with the constitutional crisis later labeled Iran Contra (which was never fully revealed in public as vital moments during congressional hearings were conducted behind closed doors [52]), then Attorney General William French Smith concluded that activities FEMA had been involved in were openly unconstitutional including compiling dossiers on those it might seek to intern. "The FBI challenged FEMA's right to pursue domestic spying, resulting in FEMA's turning over `12,000 political dossiers' to the Bureau." [53]

FEMA's involvement in martial law plans surfaced momentarily during the Iran Contra hearings. What was arguably the most important question of those hearings never got a public answer. In July 2002, Southwestern University School of Law Professor Butler Shaffer pondered the question, "Will a Police State Protect Your Liberty?":

"It requires no great genius or years of scholarly study to understand how the future is implicit in the present. In July, 1987, the Miami Herald, along with some other newspapers, ran news stories about secret plans, in the Reagan White House, to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, turn over the functioning of the US government to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and have military commanders running state and local governments, in the event of a national crisis. One of the architects of this plan was the conservative godling, Lt. Col. Oliver North. There were even rumors, in some circles, that government concentration camps were being readied for such a possibility.

"While news of such a plan failed to arouse the attention of most legislators, there was one -- Congressman Jack Brooks of Texas -- who, during the Iran-Contra hearings then being conducted, sought to question North about such reports. Brooks was quickly cut off by the Committee chairman, Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye. In the New York Times report of July 14, 1987, Inouye told Brooks: `that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area,' to which Brooks responded: `I read in Miami papers and several others that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency [NSC], a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American Constitution.' Inouye concluded: `May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon, at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.' In other words, Sen. Inouye was determined to live up to the pronunciation of his name: `in no way' are we going to let the public know what we have planned for them!" [54]

It is not publically known what process and command structures of FEMA's past are deceased, dormant or active today. Goldstein cites an August 15th 2002 Los Angeles Times story recounting ``Ashcroft's announced desire to create "camps for US citizens he deems to be `enemy combatants'" [and that] Ashcroft aides "have indicated that a `high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps"''.[55] This is described in conjunction with a July 15th NewsMax.com story that FEMA is pursuing a "crash effort" to build "sprawling temporary cities to handle millions".

John Ashcroft resorts to euphemistic subterfuge when he pretends that he can simply rename a citizen of the U.S. as an "enemy combatant". With Ashcroft's penchant for portraying 9-11 as an act of war, he is now seeking to strip any American he wants to target of their constitutional rights and liberties by labeling them "enemy combatant". In terms of Americans, General Ashcroft should call such person's "enemy citizens" since such person is still protected by our constitutional system of law, even if Ashcroft would rather deny them their rights.

Given General Ashcroft's zeal to create camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" (although FEMA's public claim is to handle millions of displaced persons in the event of a terrorist attack), it is not unreasonable to expect such camps will be employed to intern Americans. What would be Ashcroft's grounds for internment? Many people will go to the streets to challenge the brazen and continued aggrandizement of power in the hands of the Chief Executive and his officers if another alleged terrorist attack supplies them with more justification to identify and lock up enemy citizens.

FEMA's activities during Reagan's terms included national training exercises in preparation for a suspension of the constitution in case of massive domestic political turmoil. The Department of Homeland Security intends to "build upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as one of its key components." [56] Goldstein stresses that FEMA's 1980s downfall (of pursuing openly unconstitutional goals) "was a direct outgrowth of its pursuit of proactive methods, its attempt to legitimize the assumption of extraordinary powers under the very cloak of `counterterrorism'."

"At present, the final contents and disposition of the Reagan security initiatives, part of a national crisis plan, remains beyond public knowledge. But given the `War On Terror's' scope, even if a formal crisis is not declared, speculation exists that a de facto drift into an effective deployment of FEMA's crisis powers could occur. And this February, the former FEMA executive, John Brinkerhoff, who reportedly drafted the martial law/internment portions of the national crisis plan, revealed it was `approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it.'" [57]

"A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat `a national uprising by black militants'. It provided for the detention `of at least 21 million American Negroes' in `assembly centres or relocation camps'." [58]

General Ashcroft clearly is up to the task he believes he faces. Given last December's performance, when he aggressively bullied the Senate Judiciary Committee with extreme doublespeak such as "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists" and "terrorists are taught how to use America's freedoms as a weapon against us", it would be more accurate to charge the General with applying newspeak tactics to promote his idea of freedoms as a weapon against the people of this nation-state.

It is not clear how far the General's zealotry will carry him and us. Nat Hentoff, writing on September 4th about "General Ashcroft's Detention Camps, Time to Call for His Resignation" notes the status of two American citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, currently "locked up in military brigs as `enemy combatants.'"

"In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere. . . .

"Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times editorial -- written before those plans were revealed -- said: `The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citize