Aug/Sept 2002

Deep Sustainability
Roar Ramesh Bjonnes

Community Owned Enterprise
Ron Phillips

Police State Measures Will Not Make Us Safe
Kayla M. Starr, MPH

Can Democracy Survive Endless War?
Edited by Eli Pariser

A Popular Revolt This November
Ted Glick

Turning the Trolls to Stone: Strategy for the Global Justice Movement
Starhawk

Navigating the Tides of Change
David LaChapelle

Dispelling the Myths About Smallpox
Michael Framson

Observations Of A Medical Revolutionary
Doug Falkner

The Emergence of Mind-Body Medicine
Robert Newman

A Childhood Stolen and Redeemed
John Darling

Healing Hints
Peter Moore, MFCC, CGP

Flax Seed
Rebecca Wood

The Yearly Round
Richard Moeschl

The Movie Mystic: "Beautiful Mind"
Stephen Simon

BACK TO TOP

Police State Measures Will Not Make Us Safe

By Kayla Starr

“This is a very serious matter that a Director who speaks for the President on matters of national security is not accountable to the Congress, not accountable to the press and not accountable to the people. Homeland Security has a $38 billion budget. There’s been no public process to review this $38 billion budget. So you have a Director who is not accountable to the Congress, not accountable to the press, and not accountable to the people … a free exchange of ideas behind closed doors may not in reality be free. It may in fact be a direct challenge to the doctrine of separation of powers that is a key and fundamental part of our democracy. And it’s a challenge to the position of Congress as a coequal branch of government. In a democracy, secret government is not an acceptable substitute for self-government. A wink is not an acceptable substitute for an oath.”
– Dennis Kucinich, Congressman (D-Ohio)

There’s a delicate balance between a society’s love of freedom and its hunger for security. In the last six months, the United States of America, which was founded upon lofty ideals of liberty and equality, has seen the most sweeping assaults on those liberties ever—in the name of national security.

The court-appointed US president has launched a “war without end”—a war without boundaries—against terrorism, as defined by the “Just-Us” Department. The US Congress was not consulted and has remained resoundingly silent. Terrorism is frightening to all of us, but it is equally ominous to think that, in the name of anti-terrorism, our government is willing to suspend constitutional freedoms to such an extent as has happened recently. We all want to see those responsible for the attacks last September arrested and punished, and to prevent future attacks, but the measures in place now brutally override our basic constitutional freedoms.

The Homeland Defense Department, established by Congress within a month of the attacks on 9/11, gives the FBI and the CIA, agencies which have a lurid history of human rights abuses, greatly increased capacities to spy on citizens and infiltrate organizations they define as dissident. Already, there have been mass arrests and secret tribunals, detainees are not allowed private consultation with their attorneys; we are hearing reports of disappearances and torture. At this time, we know of over 700 unnamed detainees being held by the Dept of Justice, only seven of whom are charged with terrorism.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), ranking member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, walked out of a Committee briefing with Tom Ridge, Director of the Homeland Security Office. Kucinich said Ridge should testify publicly about the office, explaining, “This is a very serious matter that a Director who speaks for the President on matters of national security is not accountable to the Congress, not accountable to the press and not accountable to the people. Homeland Security has a $38 billion budget. There’s been no public process to review this budget. So you have a Director who is not accountable to the Congress, not accountable to the press, and not accountable to the people.”

The USA Patriot Act passed in March of this year imposes mandatory detention of aliens who are “suspects,” further expands law enforcement agencies’ power to wiretap, read our e-mail and spy on us, without court-issued warrants and without our knowledge. It creates a new crime of domestic terrorism, which is so loosely defined it can include groups or individuals who act to influence government policies by intimidation. Examples might be the SOA protestors at Fort Benning, GA, the WTO protests in Seattle, even the recent nation-wide anti-war demonstrations. Severe prison sentences are mandated. Our government may now seize assets of anyone deemed to be aiding or abetting suspected terrorist activities, and this can be applied retroactively.

Jennifer Van Bergen, a lawyer with ACLU in Florida writes for truthout.com, “The USA Patriot Act is an insult to Americans. The name, itself, is insulting, given what the Act contains: it is a complete abdication of democratic law and principles. It 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. If you think this law applies only to the bad guys who attacked our nation, think again. Many provisions in this law apply to and will affect Americans, in many, bad ways.

What is more frightening about it is that, despite 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.

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. The legal protection that a court must determine probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure can be made is totally discarded here. If the FBI thinks the information might contribute to an investigation, whatever the target’s activity might be, legal or not, they can simply go search and seize. (And under the new “sneak and peek” provisions, they can do so without you ever knowing it.) The law allows the FBI to spy on Americans whom no court has determined have done anything wrong.

Acts committed in the US by US citizens can be considered acts of domestic terrorism if they “appear to be intended” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” The USA Patriot Act tears down safeguards and once again permits the CIA to create dossiers on constitutionally protected activities of Americans and eliminates judicial review of such practices. Not to mention that it is a violation of the CIA’s charter to engage in law enforcement or internal security functions.

Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, sums it up well: “To an unprecedented degree, the Act sacrifices our political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government.”

A New York Times editorial on May 30th said, “In reality, Mr. Ashcroft, in the name of fighting terrorism, is giving FBI agents nearly unbridled power to poke into the affairs of anyone in the United States, even where there is no evidence of illegal activity.”

Laura Murphy, the director of the ACLU’s Washington office, puts the danger to us all plainly: “The FBI is now telling the American people, ‘You no longer have to do anything unlawful in order to get that knock on the door.’”

States are also passing these kinds of laws. In California, the state Legislature has given police power to search a home without telling the resident why. Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the law, which make search warrants and supporting documents such as affidavits non-public records. “If you think the police did secretive work before, just wait,” defense attorney William Cataldo said. “What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We’re living in a police state.” This means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person accused of the crime, can’t know why the police entered a home without permission.

All these measures play fast and loose with the US constitution without making us any safer from terrorist attacks. Building Fortress America plays into the hands of the current administration that wants to quell dissent, and to act unilaterally to dominate the world in the name of corporate profits. Can we learn from historical example? Times of hysteria, of war, and of instability are not the times to rush to enact new laws that curtail our freedoms and grant more authority to the government and its intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

There is ample evidence that our government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, that it actively interfered with the normal response for military planes to intercept the hijacked planes, and that the FBI assisted the Saudi government to fly 24 members of the bin Laden family out of the US and back to the Middle East. These bin Ladens were never questioned. We know that our bombs continue to kill and injure untold numbers of innocent Afghani people. And we are experiencing increased media censorship and public recriminations against dissenters.

Is this finally enough to wake us up? Or will we turn away in fear, while innocent people are being persecuted; pretend nothing is wrong while our basic freedoms disappear?

Please consider ways in which you personally are called to become more involved. I implore all concerned readers to learn more, let your legally elected representatives know that we demand the repeal of the USA Patriot Act, write letters, volunteer at your local peace and justice organizations, become a tax resister, protest military recruitment in our schools, participate in peace marches, boycott businesses that use sweatshop labor to manufacture their products, reduce consumption of gasoline and other scarce resources and share this information with others.

Remember, we are not an isolated fringe group, we have more power than we have been led to believe. Call the US Capitol Switchboard toll free at (800) 839-5276 to let your congresspersons and senator know how you feel about the USA Patriot Act and other important issues.

Kayla Starr has lived and worked as a massage therapist, health advocate/coach and political activist in Southern Oregon for 17 years. She is a frequent contributor to this journal and can be reached by e-mail: kayla@mind.net.

Through much of the Cold War, many people in the U.S., including policy makers, worried about the violent overthrow of the U.S. government by communists bent on a new world order. These fears led both to domestic repression and extraordinary military buildups. In the end, the U.S. democracy and capitalist economy outlived any threat that communism may have posed. The Cold War-era damage to U.S. society and citizens came not from without the U.S., nor from Fifth Columnists within the U.S., but rather from forces unleashed through the words and actions of elected officials. Some lives were destroyed by allegations of communist leanings. Others were damaged or destroyed by nuclear fallout or wastes, a direct consequence of the nuclear arms race.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain, communism ceased to be the great threat. Since September 11, terrorism has been given that role.

Violent acts such as occurred on September 11 must be addressed. However, it is not those acts that pose the greatest threat to U.S. society. Rather, the threat will come–and is already coming—from elected officials carrying out their lawful duties.

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, as destructive as they were, did not constitute an act of war directed against the U.S. by another nation. Yet, the Administration responded (with overwhelming congressional blessing) by making war on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in an ill-conceived effort to stamp out terrorism.

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. 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.

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.

The U.S. is poised at a Rubicon and the world with it. Those in U.S. government who press to cross the river are, like Caesar, committed to being victorious. But Caesar recognized that failure to conquer would mean death, for himself and all those under his leadership. Do U.S. leaders who are so eager for U.S. military domination recognize all that is at stake?

It is not too late to change course. The U.S. does not have to exercise military domination of the world. U.S. civil society and democratic government do not have to be sacrificed. The world does not have to face the nightmare of global war with weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S., through strong congressional action, can take the path of multilateral cooperation and treaties to prevent or deal with violence. Congress can authorize and fund strong national policy for the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict. Congress can reassert its legitimate oversight of agencies responsible for domestic security. Congress, through the power of the purse, can block the development of new nuclear weapons.

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.

Reprinted from the Washington Newsletter, May 2002, published by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, (202) 547-6000; fcnl@fcnl.org.

.............................................

FBI Asks Librarians to Provide Information on Patron’s Reading Choices

Under the USA-Patriot Act, passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, librarians have been made unwitting partners in the FBI’s search for potential terrorists. Any records a library might retain on a patron’s reading choices or Internet use are now retrievable by federal law enforcement with an easily obtainable court order. Librarians, traditionally defenders of intellectual freedom, are being pressed to become extensions of law enforcement, and many are balking at the new job description.

Judith Krug, the American Library Association’s director for intellectual freedom, has been advising librarians who think this new use of library records is antithetical to their mission. She proposes establishing a system of regular record deletions to put information on patron’s tastes and interests out of reach well before the FBI comes to call. Krug notes that the Patriot Act eliminates the need to show probable cause before invading a patron’s privacy. The new law allows the FBI to go to a secret foreign intelligence court, claim the information desired is part of a terrorism investigation and walk away with a court order allowing it to take a look at all the Internet traffic emanating from a library on a particular day. Moreover, librarians are prohibited from disclosing anything about law enforcement’s visit.

- St. Petersburg Times (Florida), July 23, 2002