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.

fascist america: step five, the enemy is among us

McCarthyism died years ago. . . or so some thought. Since the events of 9/11 and the actions that followed, the scare of another terrorist 'attack' has led many in the US to look in every direction for the next one, even to their friends. Conservative organizations have begun a battle cry that Islamo-facism is taking over the U.S. and we should be very afraid. McCarthyism made black lists of citizens, now they just disappear into the black sites or secret prisons talked about in Step Four. In New York the problem of targeting Muslims as radical and dangerous has produced terrible effects. A law-abiding Muslim woman announced that she planned on starting a public school where 'ambassadors for peace' would be cultivated. The Khalil Ghabran International Academy has seen a sour turn for the worse as students are suspended for carrying guns and Arab-American teachers are taunted as "terrorists." The principal, Ms. Almontaser, was forced by the Mayor's Office of New York City to resign.

"In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a “radical,” a “jihadist” and a “9/11 denier.” She stood accused of harboring unpatriotic leanings and of secretly planning to proselytize her students. Despite Ms. Almontaser’s longstanding reputation as a Muslim moderate, her critics quickly succeeded in recasting her image." - NYT 04/28/2008

This has been called just the beginning of the battle by Conservative watch groups as all Muslims, many who are seeking to advance in their regular American lives, are decried as terrorists who will soon use lawful ways to implement Sharia law and force their radical religious and political ideologies on children. What happened to Debbie Almontaser seems to have been just the beginning of the battle spurred by the aftermath of the events of 9/11. As so-called "lawful-Muslims" launch a "soft-jihad" I can only hope that we see the downfall of an ignorance that is costing our very children the education and open-minded teaching that today's world requires.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

This is a current reminder to the actions of COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO is known for its work in disrupting the Ku Klux Klan as well as the "New Left" of the 1960s. The four principles that govern its actions are:
1. Infiltration by agents to discredit and disrupt
2. Psychological warfare from the outside - planting false media stories, leaflets, etc. to undermine progressive movements
3. Harassment through the legal system
4. Extralegal force and violence - threaten, instigate, break-in, vandalize, and assault

The group may no longer be a secret (circa 1971), but it is very clear that they still operate covertly with the intent to disrupt movements for social justice and end dissent.

The little known act that has been instituted in the name of terrorism, not surprisingly a top recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report, is called the REAL ID Act. The Act faced great opposition, numerous protests, and countless testimonies against the constitutionality of the Act before the Senate committee. The Act was snuck through as a rider on a military spending bill (H.R. 1268)with no debate. Who would vote against giving our troops more funding in time of conflict? The provisions of the Act were not new and were actually outlined in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was not yet in effect. While the Act is promoted as a way to consolidate the driver's license and Social Security card, a cross-border ID, and a general way to identify the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in an easy manner. However, what you are not told is that although your state may choose not to comply with the new Act and continue to issue their own driver's license, you will not have a valid federal ID, which is required for air travel. Thirty-eight states, including the District of Columbia, have passed or are working to pass legislation in opposition to the REAL ID Act. Another unseen effect of the Act is important to protesters. At many events with designated "protest areas," there is separate security scanners. With the REAL ID it would be simple for the government to get all information and identify protesters, who are now deemed 'terrorists.' The Act redefines 'terrorist activity' to include,

"any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State)."

Therefore civil disobedience or refusal to leave a protest resulting in arrest could be deemed a 'terrorist activity.' Not to mention the President now has the power to name anyone an 'enemy combatant.' Organizations that also take part in such activities may be named 'terrorist organizations.' The provisions of this act make the very people of this country the enemy that the government needs to fight as opposed to external enemies, which we are made to think pose an extreme threat to our "homeland" security.

Needless to say we now operate in a lawless country. On November 13, 2001 the Presidential Military Order gave George W. Bush the power to detain any citizen or non-citizen suspected to be a terrorist or engaged in terrorist activity (enemy combatant). As many legal analysts and scholars contend, this order is in direct violation to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the commonly accepted law in many countries that ensure an individual their personal liberties against state infringements.

The US Constitution states:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Are we seeing a case of rebellion or invasion? I think not and as such the very government that is charged with upholding the law has broken its own. To that statement we are now living in a lawless country. Any action taken by the government cannot be ensured of its legitimacy. If we are to live under a government that does not abide by its own laws, then what is the purpose of having a government? James Madison says in the Federalist Papers No. 51 that, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." It seems the possibility of the government becoming the devil was not sufficiently balanced by past understandings of government.

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

fascist america: step four, invasion of privacy

Many people would rather not believe that the businesses that provide us with high speed internet and cell phone service would allow the government to step in a monitor what we are doing and saying over the optical lines of our latest technology. The fact is that there is clear and obvious evidence that in the business of citizen monitoring there is a lot of money to be made. We are not so free as we think, especially when it comes to checking your email or making that call home to mom.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

You may say no way, but much of the general public does not know exactly what goes through the legislature by way of our government to be able to watch what we do in the name of national security. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, CALEA, and other government devices have been implemented and strengthened in the name of fighting terrorism. Much of the following information has been gathered by concerned citizens and former and current employees of internet and service providers. Since I, myself, cannot cite them, this will have to suffice as their due credit for the comprehensive research and documentation of what has been called an "Orwellian" nightmare. All documents referred to were found via wikileaks.org.

The "Total Information Awareness" program received a great deal of opposition by civil liberties and rights groups, but it was later passed under the name, "Terrorism Information Awareness." The growing link between government agencies and the private sector for the purpose of eavesdropping on citizens is alarming. AT&T maintains secret rooms where only those with NSA clearance can enter (Mark Klein, AT&T). Reports have been uncovered about the difficulties and ways around tapping fiber optic transmissions, conferences are held to bring together law enforcement and communications technology providers, and increased measures are placed on the capabilities required of technology systems to allow them to be tap-able (CALEA Memo). A recent New York Times article does an excellent job of telling the full AT&T story and the following lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) with Mark Klein as a party to the lawsuit since he had recovered documents and had personal accounts from working at AT&T. It is now a well known fact that under the auspices of terrorist threat, the general public is being wrongly watched and monitored through illegal eavesdropping on international phone calls to a key word search software for emails and internet searches. What is happening to our privacy, where are our rights?

Privacy is not a word used in the U.S. Constitution, however there are a lot of words not used in the Constitution including marriage, children, food, or books. Are we to then believe that we do not have a right to any of these since it is not listed? The Constitution is supposed to be a document that outlines what the government is authorized to do, what is not listed in the Constitution, the government has no power to do.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The powers that are not listed in that great founding document of our country are our own to which no one else can lay claim. The Bill of Rights was an after thought because the framers felt that the Constitution laid out easily the limited powers of the government. It was later added when they were worried that there would be misunderstanding. That is why most of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights explain the few things the government can and cannot do.

The Libertarian, Harry Browne, writes:

"There really are only two areas of the Constitution that every American should understand and understand well:

Article 1, Section 8 — which enumerates the areas in which Congress has the power to legislate. You'll notice that no power is given there for Congress to pass laws regulating health care or education or charities or agriculture or any of thousands of other areas in which politicians now tell us how we must act.

The Bill of Rights — which makes it plain that the government has no authority to do anything that isn't specified in Article 1, Section 8."

When the rights of citizens are disregarded and the "enemies of the state" are increasingly the people of that state, we have reached a dangerous compliance with facism. Increasing the war powers of a President or government are often what is seen as most important and shows support, but what we then forget to do is check those powers and question what is truly happening. Thankfully we have the few like Mark Klein who will assist in exposing the wrongs of the government in conjunction with those who would make money off of our collective insecurity. When has increased surveillance ever led to increased security?

England is years ahead in restriction of its citizens, let us hope that we do not go this far:


Read Step One,Step Two & Step Three.