Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Who Is Our Enemy

On September 11, 2001 our nation was attacked. Because of that attack we now find ourselves inv a 'War On Terror'. The object of this paper is not to discuss who attacked us or why we were attacked. Nor is it to discuss whether or not the war in Iraq was justified or not.

The object of this paper is to discuss the repercussions of legislation that has passed to protect us from future terrorist attacks I also want to speculate about what really may be the reasons for this War On Terror.

As you read this I want you to think about whether or not you feel any safer since 9/11. After reading this paper you might question the governments assertion that the terrorists are our enemies, and you might begin to wonder who our enemies really are.

Before I get into current events I want to give you some background information. In 2001, before the terrorists attacked us the Hart-Rudman Commission proposed a cabinet level anti-terrorism Department. So the concern for terrorist attacks was already present before 9/11.

Now lets talk about the present. First off let me ask you if you have ever heard of any piece of legislation that wasn't read by any member of either Congress or the Senate before being voted upon? No, you say? I guess you haven't heard about H.R. 3162, otherwise known as the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was voted upon and passed before any member of Congress ever saw a printed copy of it. The Bush Administration played to our fears and our patriotic pride to get this legislation passed through Congress and on October 26, 2001 President Bush signed into law a bill that shreds the Bill of Rights to pieces. You want some examples?

Section 213 of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as the Sneak and Peek Provision allows any federal law enforcement agency to enter your home or business without you being present to collect evidence and they do not ever have to tell you they have been there. This violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Sections 202 & 216 allows any federal law enforcement agency to monitor your internet traffic, read your e mails and intercept all your cell phone calls, if they suspect that you are committing a crime. No warrant is required. This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency can come to your business and seize your records if they claim it is part of a terrorist investigation. They can also arrest you if you tell anyone that they were there. This violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

The CIA can now operate within the confines of the United States as directed by Attorney General Ashcroft. Previously this was not permitted, and now the evidence they gather can be used in court.

So you think you are safe, you are not a terrorist. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as, "activities that--involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States...and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion..." So do you still think anything you do might not classify you as a domestic terrorist?

After reviewing the Patriot Act, Congressman Ron Paul said that our forefathers would think it is time for a revolution.

On November 9, 2001 Attorney General Ashcroft announced he was ordering the Justice Dept. to wiretap attorney client conversations of terrorist suspects who were incarcerated, thereby tossing out the window the idea of attorney client privilege.
The Supreme Court even ruled in U.S.v Robel:

"[T]his concept of 'national defense' cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of...power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion that defending those values and ideas which se this Nation apart...It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."

After the civil war, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus to arrest protesters and rioters. The Supreme Court once again made a significant ruling regarding the suspension of liberties as defined in the Constitution,

"The Constitution of the Untied States is a laws for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of mean, at all times, and under all circumstance. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

With those two rulings we see it stated that it would be ironic if we gave up a liberty in the name of national defense, and that no doctrine can suspend any of the provisions of the Constitution. Yet we have seen the Patriot Act does both, it violates our liberties in the name of national defense and suspends or abolishes the provisions of the Constitution which grant us those liberties.

I have used this quote many times before but I feel it is so very important that the significance of it sinks in. James Madison said that, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "

You think that the Patriot Act was bad? What about Patriot Act II? Its provisions allow for secret arrests of persons with no bail until an indictment is handed down. Any federal employee who releases the name of someone held under these circumstances can be jailed for up to five years. Patriot II also entitles government authorities to have one on one meetings with suspected terrorists without legal counsel for the defendant. Section 126 allows the government to obtain credit reports and impose criminal penalties on credit agencies for disclosing that the government has been looking at your credit reports.

All that is a document nicknamed the Patriot Act. How ironic that any true Patriot would be out in the streets protesting this invasion of our civil liberties! What else has been done since 9/11?

On September 17, 2001 President Bush released the National Security Strategy of the United States. Parts of that can be traced back to a Harvard University Study entitled, Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy. According to that the U.S. can launch preemptive strikes against any nation without provocation if we suspect they might become a terrorist threat. So now we can declare war with anyone who we might have reason to fear that in the future they may attack us. Look out Iran, China, Syria, and North Korea!

What is interesting is that many of the key players in these policies, upwards of 80%, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberger Group. All these groups have a tendency to lean towards fascist rule. So does that give you any clue as to the direction this country is going?

You think that is bad? How about the Proactive Preemptive Operation Group, or PGO2? According to Wikipedia:

“In 2002, it was estimated that PGO2 would require a team of hundred people with experience in covert activities, intelligence gathering, computer network attacks and other highly specialized skills, and at least $100 million annually to sustain operations. The covert counter-intelligence agents would be responsible for secret missions targeting terrorist leaders in order to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, thereby provoking violent acts, which would in turn make them susceptible to counterattack by US forces”

All through this war on terror we have heard the possibility of biological attacks against us here in the United States, particularly smallpox. There has been talk of mass vaccinations of the public to prevent outbreaks if the threat of a biological attack were to be imminent.

World Health records show that any time mass vaccinations took place, devastating epidemics followed. England, Germany, Italy, the Philippines and India all suffered epidemics following mass vaccinations.

With that in mind, Title 3 of the act that created the Dept. of Homeland Security mentions smallpox and other diseases. That act makes it law that if people die due to receiving an untested vaccine during a state of emergency, those who administer the vaccines will be immune from being sued.

You should be safe shouldn’t you? After all these vaccines are tested by the FDA. Think again. According to an article in the New York Times on May 31, the FDA said that eliminating the need for human testing could spur the development of anti-terrorism drugs by eliminating the stumbling block of ethical concern of exposing people to things like smallpox or nerve gas.

So, you won’t take the vaccine? Read on. In March the Federal Appeals Court for the Eight Circuit ruled that a defendant can be forcibly drugged even though he has not been convicted of a crime. The Court found that there are no limits on the quantities or types of drugs the government can administer.

So now we have the possibility that there will be mandatory vaccines for supposed emergencies like Avian Flu, Smallpox or maybe Anthrax. These vaccines have not been tested and could prove fatal. If you refuse to take them you could be arrested and then the government, according to the ruling of the Federal Appeals Court, can give you the vaccine anyway.

So now we have a government that;
1) Says it needs no provocation to attack anyone if it suspects they may be a future threat to our national security
2) has supposedly created a military group who is going out and stimulating terrorist activities which will give us more reasons to attack them. (I wonder if the reason for the War in Iraq is to further enrage Muslim nations against the U.S. which would give us more reasons to attack them?)
3) has decimated your civil rights through the provisions of the Patriot Act and the guise of Homeland Security.
4) is willing to administer untested vaccines in the case of a national emergency
5) can jail you for refusing to accept that vaccine
6) administer the vaccine while you are incarcerated against your wishes

So after reading a few of the items that are being done for you benefit under the guise of homeland security, do you still feel safe? Who do you think your real enemy is, Osama Bin Laden, or the U.S. government?

No comments: