From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 13:00:38 MDT
Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Samantha Tennison wrote:
>
>> 1. We are an "indefinite" war without a clear enemy
>> and no clear criteria for what might end this war -
>> thus its indefinite nature.
>
>
>
> Although I will admit I did not witness it myself, I'm told the Vietnam
> War was considerably murkier than our present one on both counts. In
> addition, if and when we can successfully shift away from a
> petroleum-based economy, our enemies will abruptly have much less power;
> there was no equivalent (widely known) hope for a solution through
> technology in Vietnam.
I was there in that (although quite young) and while Vietnam was
a senseless waste of lives, it was in no wise as murky as the
"war on terror" and it did not generate the extremely dangerous
laws eroding our freedoms that we are seeing now. It borders on
historical revisionism to claim otherwise and it is quite
dangerous to miss the crucial differences.
>
>> 2. The largest revision and expansion of surveillance
>> and executive powers in US History - lifting all
>> previous bans, including the elimination of 4th
>> ammendment protections - granting the massive US
>> surveillance machine to spy on americans. Imagine
>> what they were able to do with just the FBI going
>> after dissent in your above examples. Now imagine the
>> entire US surviellance apparatus with unprecendented
>> levels of technology doing it this time.
>
>
>
> Imagine being locked away for life for giving the politically wrong
> answer to, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the group
> we don't like?" Ashcroft is a wannabe Hoover - "wannabe" mainly because
> the media and courts are on guard for a repeat.
>
It is worse than that I am afraid. It is more like, "Has
Samantha ever expressed an opinion we find distasteful and is
she enough of a thorn in our side, or do we need to do soemthing
to look busy right now? OK, bag her and all her possessions."
Yes, I am stretching a point. But the laws now on the books
allow such to happen at any time, legally. And the person
speaking doesn't have to be any highly placed official. It ould
be a local field agent.
>> 3. Erosion of the seperation of powers. Will become
>> almost non-existent if Bush is granted his "broad new
>> powers" that he is requesting.
>
>
>
> Err...I don't see anything in his requests that would abolish Congress
> or the Supreme Court. And if he really steps this up, look for the
> Supremes to look for a quick excuse to say "Uh-uh, sorry, oh and anyone
> enforcing your orders which we've declared illegal is guilty of
> innumerable felonies."
>
You see laws voted in by Congres being retroactively expanded by
the Executive with little or no review or process for any
review. You see oversight made impossible with more things
decleared matters of national security including what a person
is charged with or what the evidence in a case is. You see
administrative papers from the Carter administration on declared
arbitrarily immune to FOIA. You see Congress people rip up
politically if they question to hard or call for investigation.
In that sort of environment it has become very difficult for
normal checks and balances to be applied.
>> 4. Internment and loss of constitutional rights for
>> ordinary americans - with the Padilla case, obviously
>> engineered and fabricated to set the legal precedent.
>
>
>
> Yep. And watch the courts doing everything they can to set the
> precedent *away* from said practice having even a shred of legitimacy
> when applied to ordinary Americans.
>
I really hope you are right. But I would be willing to bet that
it fizzles out with no clear cut precedent against such behavior
on part of the government and threat to all of us.
>> 5. Erosion or outright elimination of the Pssse
>> Cumatus laws preventing US Troops to be actively
>> engaged in domestic law enforcement.
>
>
>
> The only real danger here would seem to be some military people trying
> to apply military law to civilian situations. Count the seconds for the
> courts to overrule this once it reaches court.
>
That is certainly not the only danger and not the only reason we
have such laws. What if it does not reach court in a timely
manner? What if the court is stacked for political reasons? We
will see.
>> 6. The creation of an American Stasi - Operation TIPS
>> - rumored to be going forward, curcumventing
>> congressional approval by tieing it in with 'America's
>> Most Wanted' TV Program. Some people having already
>> joked about renamine the program, 'Americans Most
>> Unpatriotic'.
>
>
>
> TIPS...this would be the group that reports people videotaping bridges,
> casing public joints, et cetera, much like some of the new Homeland
> Security agencies are already doing so they can find out what the
> terrorists could find out, right? So, how long before TIPS-informed law
> enforcement officials and HS start going after each other? (#include
> any of the classic "wannabe hero cop busts a sting operation" scenes
> from police and vigilante dramas.)
This would be the proposed group involving up to 10 million
Americans that would report anything and everything they
consider suspicious which would then go into a nationwide highly
accessible database without any need for oversight or proof
the allegations are real. Files would be gathered on
"suspicious" individuals. Legally they can have their homes and
businesses ransacked on some harebrained "suspicion" or out and
out malice on the part of the reporting party.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:20 MST