Let us pray for the real truth to come out and let peace prevail and let the half baked stories about "Islam and foreigners" get exposed .

Hope all is well and stay safe

Habib

>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: The Biggest Police State in the World. >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:21:31 EDT > >Dr Frederick H. Miller is a writer for The Q newsletter, and >other Freedom and Privacy Publications. > >OPS Guest Editorial: The Biggest Police State in the World. > >I was shocked by a television documentary I watched the other >day while on a recent visit to Frankfort, Germany. “America >has become the biggest police state in the history of the >world,” according to the program. > >I was shocked! I was shocked because this was not a case of >me talking about the USA, nor of anyone writing for any of the >so-called underground or avant-garde publications. No, this >was German network television at its best. > >Those of you who have read my writings and ramblings on these >pages know that I have been prone to make such a pronouncement, >as did the German television station. So have other people who >write on the subjects of freedom, privacy, and matters offshore. >We’re considered crackpots by the mainstream press, so that >makes this pronouncement by the German television network even >more astounding. This is indicative of how America is now >viewed by many Europeans: a police state. > >How the did home of the free and the land of the brave get to >be, in the opinion of some (yours truly included), the biggest >police state in the history of the world? > >Well, before September 11th, we know that there were a lot of >changes in the USA. Most of them have been chronicled on >these very pages. > >As America came out of the Great Depression of the 1930’s, one >of the more startling discoveries that was made by the modern >day politicians was the extent to which a war time footing >for the country could not only fire up the passions of the >people a la Pearl Harbour, but it could fire up the economy, >too. > >Americans weren’t too motivated to get into World War II until >the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. Then, it was “Katie bar >the door!” We all now know that the White House knew the >Japanese attack was imminent, but did nothing, in order >eliminate the isolationists in Congress who didn’t want >to enter into the war in Europe. > >Attack the Japanese in the Pacific, defend England against the >Nazis and take the rest of Europe and North Africa away from >Adolph and Benito. This motivation required a tremendous >mobilization of men and materiel supported by money. Money >which was lent by the wealthy of the world. And, it turned >America into a debtor state in that it owed far more than >it made. > >The longer the war raged on in the Pacific theatre and in >Europe/North Africa, the better and healthier became the >American economy. And, the better the health of the economy, >the better it is for the tycoons who manipulate the political >process. > >After World War II, there was a brief period of tranquillity >and euphoria because the war was over and because the Americans >had played such a significant and deciding role in it. Then, >wartime footing no longer in force, recession began to rear >its ugly head. > >In the meantime, there had been some division and insurrection >in South Korea, there was threat of a Northern invasion. Late >on the night of August 10, 1945, the U.S. made the decision to >annex and occupy south Korea. > >Interestingly, this decision was taken to keep the Soviet Union >from annexing the entire country, even though the soviets had >only joined the fight in Korea during the preceding week.The >U.S. made the decision to partition the country at the 38th >parallel, in order to keep Seoul in the south. Even more >interestingly, the soviets did not contest any of this and >acquiesced graciously. > >By the end of 1946, both regimes were pretty much solidly in >place, and the two de facto governments were formally >recognized in 1948 by the U.N. The soviets withdrew their >troops at the end of 1948 concurrently, more or less, with >the U.N. recognition. > >There was considerable factionalism in Korea because of the >conflict of “left” and “right” ideologies which conflicted >primarily over land reform. The U.S. participated to the >extent that it suppressed the left-wing faction and supported >Syngman Rhee as the de facto south Korean leader. Rhee had >lived for many years in the U.S. and was an avowed >anti-communist. > >In support of Rhee, the U.S. sent some 500 “advisors” to South >Korea to advise on the suppression of the leftist movement. > >U.S. participation escalated. According to U.S. military records, >most of the skirmishes and incursions were by the U.S. support >south, not by the north. However, by October 1950 and backed by >the Chinese government, the north invaded the south. > >By 1950, America was looking for another means of jacking up >the economy, and, lo and behold, the Chinese and Kim Il Sung >(north Korean leader) gave them just what they were looking for >in Korea. An opportunity for a police action in Korea which >lasted three years and many more soldiers, many more dead. > >Then, following eight years of the Eisenhower administration, >new blood and new outlooks entered the American White House. > >John Kennedy was approached about sending “advisors” to Viet >Nam (as had so recently been done in south Korea) and declined. >John Kennedy did not want a war, did not see war as the >solution to economic problems. His disinclination to send >advisors to Viet Nam and his strong support for change in >social policy, in part, as economic stimulus, really offended >those in the so-called military industrial establishment >(and may even have resulted in his death). > >When Lyndon Johnson was approached, even during his term as >vice-president, he was a hawk in favor of sending the advisors. >When Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson promised the generals >and the corporate honchos of the companies that supported the >military that they could have their war, so long as it didn’t >interfere with his programs on social policy. In the social >responsibility sense, Johnson was with Kennedy, but opposed his >dovish stance on military activities. Hence, the Johnson era >slogan “Guns and butter”. > >As in Korea, the war in Viet Nam, although giving the economy >a boost for a time, proved too costly in the light of the >expensive list of social programs that Johnson wanted and, >in fact, implemented. The economy faltered terribly. And, >the terrible emotional depression suffered by the American >people as a result of the Kennedy assassination was exacerbated >by the riots and demonstrations against Johnson’s war in Viet >Nam. The moral fibre and emotional stability of the country >was irreparably damaged. > >All through the ‘70’s the economy was mostly stagnant with >occasional flashes of life from the equities markets. OPEC >created huge gas lines at petrol stations around the world, >but especially in America which depended so much on foreign >oil. Inflation became a prime topic of conversation on >everyone’s lips. Inflation fuelled by high oil prices. > >It wasn’t until the Justice Department convinced President >Reagan that a war on drugs was necessary that America’s >economy once again began to be revitalized. In the aftermath >of Viet Nam, Americans were not receptive to a “military” war. >Still, in order to stop drug traffickers from selling drugs >to their children on the school grounds, a “war on drugs” >was widely supported by most Americans. > >Little did we know then what the war on drugs would bring. > >First, it brought more drugs. That sure spruced up the >economy. Increased the budget for a new law enforcement >agency, the DEA. Then, someone got the bright idea of >nailing the drug lords for unpaid income taxes on their >ill-gotten gains. This last proved to be the key to a >treasure trove, and it was followed by legislation permitting >confiscation of assets without due process and a monumental >effort to find all the bad boys’ money. > >That got us money laundering legislation. How to track >financial transactions? Where it the money? Who owns it? >How do we get it when it’s offshore? Money laundering >legislation led to more and more erosion of individual >freedoms as the privacy of the individual became subordinate >to the quest for more and more dollars generated by more >and more traffickers in a war on drugs which was less and >less effective. > >Doing drugs became a crime. The longest most outrageous >sentencing in the world for even nominal drug use is a fact >of life in the U.S. There are more users in jail in the U.S. >than there are drug traffickers, by and large, with longer >sentences. > >Importing and selling drugs became a crime. Kids were urged >to “grass” on their grass-using parents. All the flower >children and baby boomers who were using so-called recreational >drugs or who had used them became paranoid all the time, not >just when they were smoking. > >Then, someone got the bright idea of using the same technique >that put Al Capone in jail to fight the drug traffickers, i.e., >to go after them for unpaid taxes on their ill-gotten gains. >This led, in turn, to the war on money laundering, the war >on tax avoidance, the war on offshore banking havens, all >the other invasions of privacy we so often write about on >these pages. > >However, for the most part, other than for specific drug >interdiction escapades by the American military in the jungles >of south America, none of this latter activity had much of a >positive economic impact on the military-industrial >establishment nor on the American economy. > >In the aftermath of September 11th, however, we have >experienced a resurgence of war time footing, first with >the initial marshalling of resources to defend against >further terrorist attacks, the passage of the Patriot Act >(tipping laws in Big Brother’s favor in more than 350 >different subject areas involving more than 40 separate >federal agencies), arbitrary detention without due cause >of aliens with foreign sounding names, and, finally, the >conquest of Afghanistan. > >The Patriot Act alone is one of the biggest chops taken out >of the Freedom Tree in the history of the United States. The >Act allows “black bag” searches of all your personal financial, >computer, telephone and medical records, even your history at >the public library. Top Secret warrants are issued under the >Foreign Surveillance Act to target foreign powers, but these >warrants can be issued and the surveillance carried out >against American citizens. “Probable cause” in the legal >sense no longer applies. > >The American government has imposed many changes in the legal >rights of American citizens as part of its fight against >terrorism, just as the erosion of freedom began under the >guise of the war against drugs. But, now, the balance >between freedom and security seems to have swung away >from freedom. > >Now, the government has the authority to imprison AMERICANS >indefinitely, without charges or defense lawyers, and the >government’s ability to investigate, arrest, detain and try >anyone has been substantially expanded. Law enforcement >now has far easier access to your personal lives while >operating in total secrecy. And, you can forget about >the concept that law-abiding citizens can freely associate >with other law-abiding citizens without the threat of >government surveillance. > >Where once the U.S. government used “possible drug trafficking” >as a means to investigate money laundering, as it has used >“possible money laundering” to investigate tax evasion, tax >avoidance and other so-called crimes, it now uses >“anti-terrorism” as its excuse for violating what used >to be your rights. > >The Bush administration has gone so far as to impose other >“legal” changes without congressional consent, such as >allowing federal agents to monitor attorney-client >conversations in federal prisons and prodding federal >bureaucrats to refuse to provide access to documents under >the Freedom of Information Act. FBI can now monitor political >and religious meetings inside the U.S., even where there is >no reason to believe that a crime has been committed. They >haven’t done that kind of thing for years, not since the >days of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. > >Since September 11th, untold thousands of men and women of >middle eastern origins have been arrested and detained by >the United States government without probable cause, without >charges being rendered against them, without benefit of a >legal defense or even access to a lawyer. Some have been >questioned and deported after immigration hearings which >are no longer held in the public eye. Some were just >questioned and detained and are still in detention. > >The administration refuses to reveal the names of these people >and is refusing to adhere to a court order of a federal judge >to reveal the names, claiming that Mr. Bush’s war on terrorism >can’t be challenged by the judiciary and that civilian courts >have no jurisdiction over the detention of these thousands >of people. > >Any foreigner now entering the United States must allow >him/herself to be subjected to fingerprinting by the American >authorities. > >Countries around the world have been told that “either you >are with us, or you are terrorists, too”, in order to get >them to comply with the provisions on the Patriot Act and >other quasi-legal investigatory activities in which the >Americans want to engage in that foreign country. > >In a recent revelation, it was revealed to me by a fairly >high official of a middle eastern country that, when his >country refused to allow an American task force of IRS >agents and FBI agents to come into his country to >investigate all the banking transactions of the past five >years (ostensibly to find the money links to terrorism), >the Bush administration froze all of that country’s assets >in the USA, as well as all of the assets of its ruling >leaders which were in American financial institutions. > >The particular country in question is without doubt NOT a >supporter of Osama Bin Laden and had been, before the >high-handed actions of the Bush administration, a staunch >supporter of the U.S. policy in the middle east and elsewhere >and certainly in the war against terrorism. But, this >country is an “offshore banking haven” and therefore a >target of American curiosity with respect to its banking >clientele. Apparently, from what I can gather from my >sources, this is not an isolated incident. > >The IRS anti-offshore forces were in full operations mode >this past week when they went to court seeking MasterCard >records the years 1999, 2000, and 2001 in more than 30 >“offshore” jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Bermuda, >Liechtenstein, and Belize. Not just MasterCard records >for Americans, but all MasterCards. > >These continuing activities of IRS are primarily directed at >Americans who dare to think that they can exercise their >freedoms by using offshore banking institutions to privatize >their financial transactions on credit card. Previously, >IRS has gone after records for earlier years in such places >as the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. Earlier this year, >access to VISA card records for the same 30 plus countries >was authorized by a U.S. federal district court in >San Francisco. > >This whole issue of the IRS chasing off after credit card >records in non-USA jurisdictions is illegal. It is clearly >unconstitutional. Worse yet, like so many other invasions >of privacy since the beginning of the so-called “war on drugs” >and now the “war on terrorism”, it’s just a big fishing trip. > >IRS says between one million and two million Americans have >overseas ban accounts with credit and/or debit cards and that >the majority of those individuals are tax evaders. They have >no evidence to support those numbers, they have offered no >proof, and, in fact, they have not even supported a case >for “probable cause”. IRS has always been “full of it”, >but they are really showing their collective employee >backside with this latest venture. > >There is a cycle underway right now which is, in part, >perpetrated by IRS and DEA called let’s capture the >drug traffickers and tax evaders laundered money side >by side with another cycle which indicates that terrorist >attacks are automatically followed by government curtailment >of civil liberties, and these two cycles are getting to be >more and more pronounced, more and more protracted. > >Of course, these are not the only transgressions against >individual freedom and personal privacy. > >The biggest and most frightening of these is the fact Bush >has proposed that laws which bar American military personnel >from being actively involved in law enforcement on U.S. >territory. Giving the U.S. military the right to act on >U.S. soil is truly a first step toward the dictatorship >which it appears Mr. Bush would really like to implement. > >Specifically, Bush has called on Congress to eliminate the >ban on American military forces from participating in arrests, >searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activities >on U.S. soil, pursuant to the Posse Comitatus Act. > >Bush’s proposal for TIPS (since soundly shot down) called >for a network of Americans to spy on Americans. They used >to have a similar system in East Germany. The east Germans >called it the Stasi. > >New federal standards for state-issued driving licenses has >been proposed, too, which would determine who gets a license, >how they are issued and what information is listed on it. >Basically, it would appear to be a thinly disguised >intra-country U.S. passport or national identity card. > >Imposition of smart borders has been proposed by the Bushies. >These would require biometric identification, from optical to >fingerprints and, one assumes ultimately, DNA. Future visitors >to the U.S., beginning in 2004, will be required to have >microchips in their passports, i.e., biometric data and >identifiers built into the document itself. > >Bush also plans to end some sunshine laws which give the >public access to information about critical facilities and >programs, such as dangerous chemical programs on U.S. >territory. He would set up a system to track the perfectly >legal purchase of prescription drugs, antibiotics, aerosol >generators, and fermenting equipment. > >With the support of the Bush White House, Congress has passed >a computer crime bill which expands police ability to conduct >internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining >a court order. Bush has asked Congress to pass a Cyber >Security Enhancement Act (CSEA) as a way of responding to >electronic intrusions and any threat of cyber-terrorism. >As it is now written, the law, which has yet to pass the >senate, calls for life sentences for computer hackers. > >Any 14 year old with good computer skills who sees it as fun >and a prank to hack into a government computer could receive >a life sentence for foolishness. > >Further to this, CSEA also would specify a ban on advertising >any product or device which is used primarily for surreptitious >electronic surveillance. There goes your home video security >system. > >Currently, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency >(DARPA) is awarding contracts for the design and implementation >of a Total Information Awareness (TIA) system. This system >won’t operate with megabytes or gigabytes of data, it will >operate with petabytes of raw data, all under the control >of a single agency with limited public accountability. This >would truly be a data-veillance program without equal. Are >you ready? > >New airline procedures, tighter controls on immigration, >better security for cargo containers, research on vaccines >and antidotes to biological and chemical attacks, better >sensors to detect nuclear weapons, and shaper analyses by >intelligence and law enforcement agencies, greater security >at nuclear labs and facilities, protection of water supplies, >greater airport security: all these things are desirable >and practical things to do to protect against terrorist >attack. > >The other freedom destroying things which are being implemented >by Mr. Bush in the name of the war on terrorism are >frightening. > >First among those, unfortunately, is the fact that the conquest >of Afghanistan proved to be too short lived and too easy, the >previous problems of the Russians in doing so notwithstanding. >It was all too easy. So, now, we find the Bush administration >threatening war against Iraq, even against the better >judgement of Republican members of Congress, among others. > >U. S. rhetoric from the Bush White House has reached a point >where it defies belief and will making backing down almost >impossible. Bush has placed a chip on America’s shoulder >and pushed it right to the edge. Even Saddam Hussein will >not need to stand on tiptoe to knock it off. > >In addition, the U.S. has sent troops to Russia to assist >the Russians in dealing with the dissidents, to the >Philippines to help suppress anti-government and >anti-democracy advocates, and it has increased its >troop strength in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 as >the mobilization continues. With talk now of an imminent >invasion of Iraq, it appears the war will widen >(coincidentally, just what Osama Bin Laden has said he wanted). > >Osama wants a wider war which borders on world war fought >between Islam and the infidels. Bush wants a war to save his >economy. Mr. Oil Baron Bush apparently, in my opinion, also >covets the oil reserves in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia and in Russia, >among others. He’s doing all he can to make those reserves >accessible and appears to be ready to whatever it takes to >make sure that he, and only he, is in a position to control >those assets and reserves. > >Americans, as did the rest of the world, wanted the U.S. to >strike back at the terrorists after September 11th, all >Americans supported Mr. Bush when he promised to wipe >out evil-doers everywhere in the world. When innocent >Afghans died in the bombing, the governments line was, >“well, there will always be collateral damage”. > >When security was enhanced at airports, it created enormous >inconvenience for travellers everywhere, but it was understood >to be for the public good. When habeus corpus was suspended, >the position was that the rights under the Bill of Rights >don’t accrue to terrorists. > >Speaking of the Bill of Rights, when there was one in the >United States, it assured any individual from anywhere that >he/she had the right to competent counsel, that the individual >had the right to confront his/her accusers and to know the >charges against him/her, and a right to a speedy trial before >a jury of one’s peers. > >Under the current suspensions of freedom in the United States, >YOU may be detained in secret, not allowed to speak with an >attorney, and you might not even receive a public trial. >Can executions in secret be far behind? > >Most Americans seem to have forgotten the days when one didn’t >need to show a government issued identification document >in order to travel by airline. Remember? It was just 10 years >ago. > >Now, in addition to the thought crime police as proposed under >the TIPS arrangement, Republicans in the House want to create >a whole new class of “attempted” crimes, i.e., a provision >which would make any attempt to break a federal law a federal >crime and a punishable act. > >The broadness of the language in the bill pending submission >permits it to apply to everything from attempted murder or >terrorism to mislabelling baby food or snack foods. What’s >more, the crime of “attempted crime” would carry the same >penalties as “actual crimes”. Every federal law would be >complemented with a corresponding “attempted crime” provision. > >There is a delicate balance between individual liberty and >national security. The American government has pushed civil >liberties protections to their limits. Clearly, the American >courts have pushed back, stopping just short of support of >Mr. Bush’s tactics or of supporting the rationales he has >offered for justifying them. > >In all of American history, there have always been battles over >the reach of government. The worst of those battles have >always been over issues of a government trying too hard, going >too far, and infringing on civil liberties during a time of >war. > >There have already been too many comparisons to the behaviour >of the Bush administration to that of Big Brother in George >Orwell’s 1984, albeit with some merit, but please permit just >this one small digression. > >Orwell’s world did exist in a state of permanent war. The >propaganda ministry was called the ministry of truth. The >leader was omni-present and all-powerful and infallible. Big >Brother was always watching, and the thought police were >everywhere. > >It would take very little at this point to upset the delicate >balance between national security and freedom of the individual >and erode the freedoms which all of us hold dear to the point >that life imitates Orwell. > >Assistant U.S. Attorney Viet Dinh was recently quoted as saying >that, “I think security exists for liberty to flourish and >liberty cannot exist without order and security”. > >I would submit to you that perhaps, just perhaps, as a famous >Asian human rights activist recently said, “…I am now convinced >that American democracy requires the repression of democracy >in the rest of the world” and elimination of all privacy and >freedom of action at home. > >Hence, the actions of the Bush administration at home and >abroad begin to make some sense. > >But I ask you: Have I not described the biggest police state >in the history of the world? History will judge, both my >opinion and the actions of the Bush White House during the >years of the War on Terrorism. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >If you would like more >information about the Q Newsletter and other Quester Press >Publications contact: [log in to unmask] >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface >at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html >To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: >[log in to unmask] > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~