fascist america: step six, are you on the list?

Over the past years we have slowly watched as the terms of "enemy combatant", "terrorist", and other such terms have come to encompass the very citizens of the mostly free United States of America. We have seen it become more and more convenient over our history as certain administrations faced opposition from ordinary citizens. The greatest mobilization that met a very strong military backlash (including multiple troop units, calvary, and tanks) was the Bonus Army of the 1930s. War veterans from WWI demanded their bonus pay as the Great Depression took strong effect on their lives and families. Before I go too far on a tangent, the topic of today's step towards a frightening state is the fact that regular citizens with dissenting opinions can and do face state repercussions. The best current example of this is the creation of "Free Speech Zones" at political events. This includes both Democratic and Republican. I know that in many of my posts under the title "fascist america" tend to lean towards examples of Republican or 'Right-leaning' peoples and politicians. The fact of the matter is that while it may be easiest to find example of the overt stomping of civil rights by 'the Right,' it is just as easy to see the silence and inaction of 'the Left' when it comes to challenging what may be deemed wrong.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

The definition relates back to Step Five, where we saw the backlash of 'terrorist' attacks on Arab-American citizens and others confused as looking like terrorists. It also relates back to discussions in Step Five regarding the Real ID act and the redefining of 'enemy combatant' and 'terrorist' to include ordinary citizen groups. Even more now, if you so much as carry a dissenting sign at any political event you will be nearly 'hog-tied' and carted off if you fail to remove yourself from the event to a "free speech zone." In an article in The American Conservative Magazine published in 2003, the author highlights three separate events at three Bush visits across the country. In an interview with 65 year-old retired steel-worker, Bill Neel after his arrest he later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

A notable quote, I can only hope that the majority of US citizens agree with his statement that our whole country should be a free-speech zone. In a CNN article written in 2004, the constitutionality of free-speech zones was considered and easily the author debates the difference between zones and searches, which is the least intrusive and still allows for dissent to be heard. I cannot necessarily agree that searches will allow dissenters to be closer to a political event. The author also importantly brings up the idea of dialogue and how penning protesters completely negates that first amendment ability to persuade. If we really seek a better America, why not encourage dialogue. It can then be noted that protesters are not there for dialogue, but just to yell slogans, but the idea cannot be lost that placing voices of dissent in cages cannot promote democracy. Another important issue to think about is security concerns, however the author does not agree and easily says that the security concern is not valid to allow for 'free-speech zones.'

More recently, a judge in Denver allowed for 'free-speech zones' to be set-up for the DNC in 2008. In the article, the judge says that the security concern is far greater than the rights of citizens. The ACLU and others argued against the ruling, but in the end Judge Marcia Kreiger agreed that some freedom of expression would be restricted, but stuck to her ruling on the basis of the security concern. The youtube videos of protesters was in typical fashion of police force against protest and dissent. The protests were near mirror images of many other protests that I cover in Step Three. The police state is not above political party as an ABC reporter was man-handled at the DNC:



Also this year, the Center for Constitutional Rights reports that 52 anti-war activists won a $2 million lawsuit against the New York City police for violating their First Amendment "rights to assemble and speak their mind free from the fear that they will be punished for their views." (CCR) Why is it in some cases easy to hold law enforcement accountable for wrong-doings related to constitutional rights and other times the legal battles just disappear?

These events and others are what can lead a person to be added to "the list." On 13 August, the TSA Blog wrote a reaction to the USA Today article saying that you would be added to a list if you forgot your ID at the airport. This may have been proven false, but contradiction was written everywhere. One commenter says this (better than I could):

From the article you linked to in your unsigned blog post:
Asked about the program, TSA chief Kip Hawley told USA TODAY in an interview Tuesday that the information helps track potential terrorists who may be "probing the system" by trying to get though checkpoints at various airports.

Later Tuesday, Hawley called the newspaper to say the agency is changing its policy effective today and will stop keeping records of people who don't have ID if a screener can determine their identity. Hawley said he had been considering the change for a month. The names of people who did not have identification will soon be expunged, he said.

In your unsigned blog post you wrote:
An August 13 USA Today article overstated the Transportation Security Administration’s interest in passengers who come to airport checkpoints without identification but cooperate in establishing their identity. The story gives the public the impression they might be put on a “list” if they forget their ID. That is false.

Passengers whose identity is confirmed will not be added to any watch list or face additional scrutiny during future checkpoint visits.

Please explain why you are so intensely spinning or slanting the facts.

The story plainly and clearly states the TSA is no longer adding those person's without ID to the list, and that those already on the list will be expunged, yet you attempt to twist the truth by saying persons are not put on a list for that, clearly implying that TSA never did put those names on the list that they never did keep.

Your boss says otherwise.

So it seems there is no doubt about it there are watch lists out there, if you care about the US and its people and have decided to do something about it, then you are probably on there too. It has become a constant that if you try to voice dissent or find something out you will be detained and taken to court - we see it in cases of reporters over and over, of ordinary citizens on no fly lits, of college students charged when speaking their mind - systematic detention and release of 'trouble-makers' has become a policy of our government. In July, Reuters reported that the 'Terrorism Watch List' topped one million people. Watch the CNN video made by a CNN commentator who also happens to be on the 'terrorism watch list.'



Read Step One,Step Two, Step Three, Step Four & Step Five.