You've done nothing to be considered a "terrorist." Why should
you care if the government spies on you?
The reason you should care is that the never-ending war on "terrorism"
provides a legal justification for eliminating political enemies. Such activities
have been going on illegally for a very long time, but the "war on
terrorism" makes things a lot easier.
very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary
suggestions" (Dick Cheney qtd. (1) 5/24/2002).
Because of the
"war on terrorism," political war has been legalized. Of course, most people
only need to worry about being lied to by the government in their daily
document ...entitled "Winning the War on Ideas" [...] dated
Sept. 17, 2003 [...] said [it is a] goal ...to establish... "...effective
strategic influence ...and ...perception management campaigns."
[...] [A] senior defense official [added,] [...] "This is not
a secret document on how we're going to change the Arab world's perception
of the U.S." (Schmitt, NYT p. A6 12/5/2003).
For those of
us in the "non-Arab" world, the kind of ideas contained in the
document could spell bad news... literally.
news media can be used ...to avoid "the media going to other sources
(such as an adversary or critic of U.S. policy) for information" (Arkin,
DP p. K5 12/1/2002, Unnamed Air Force document).
But for others, this war is about behavior modification. The idea is that
because you are being watched and blacklisted based on your political
"profile," you will be less likely to attend, for example, an
anti-war march or an environmental protest. If you are not the protesting
type, you may just want to read a book about war or the environment. You
can still checkout any book you want, but certain books, and certain political
views, will get you on the list, and will cause your phone to be tapped.
Most people think it would only be books about bomb making, but it could
be books about war or the environment, or anything the administration
includes in a particular "model."
Information Awareness of transnational threats requires keeping track
of individuals and understanding how they fit into models [...] so
that analysts can hypothesize, test and propose theories and mitigating
strategies about possible futures, so [politicians] can effectively
evaluate the impact of current or future policies and prospective
courses of action (DARPA Information Awareness Office (2) 11/25/2002).
It gets worse. Let's say you work for Enron and have found out about a scandal
involving Ken Lay. You have some ideas about clean energy, and you threaten
to expose Ken Lay in order to get your ideas about clean energy heard. With
the "war on terrorism" in full swing, Ken Lay can now have you carted away
for a long time. Even if your idea is an improvement related to energy,
you can be stopped by the secret police from threatening the profits of
those close to the administration under the justification that you are a
procedures prescribed by the President, all appropriate agencies ...shall
...share homeland security information with Federal agencies and appropriate
State and local personnel... [...] The procedures prescribed... shall
establish conditions on the use of information... to ensure that such
information is not used for an unauthorized purpose; The term 'State
and local personnel' means... [...] [e]mployees of private-sector
entities that affect critical infrastructure, cyber, economic, or
public health security, as designated by the Federal Government in
procedures developed pursuant to this section (HSA Sec 892).
In fact, you
can remain in a military prison until the President declares an end to war
on "terrorism," which isn't likely because the war has already been declared
administration ...could order a ...search of a U.S. citizen's home
and, based on information gathered, secretly declare the citizen an
enemy combatant, to be held indefinitely at a U.S. military base.
Courts would have very limited authority to second-guess the detention,
to the extent that they were aware of it [...] "It's a separate
track for people we catch in the war." (DP p. A1 12/1/2002 from
"I'm not sure that 280 million Americans are ready to accept
that [the war on terror] is a permanent condition..."
(Tom Ridge qtd. (3) 05/28/2002).
As long as the
"war" is going, the President can declare anyone he wants an enemy.
That way, society will never change for the better, and the wealthy interests
of the administration will be protected. Chances are, you'll never even
talk. You'll be afraid, and that's what behavior modification is all about.
Fear replaces freedom.
If the administration gets their way, you'll also be afraid to disagree
with their economic policy. You'll not only be afraid because of statements
about how dissent "aids terrorists," but because the people around
you will look at you like you're Osama bin Laden. It's all part of the administration's
"war of ideas," which argues that a low minimum wage and high
executive salaries are the only way to avoid another 9-11. Sound extreme?
Soon, such views will become part of our national identity. If you disagree,
you might as well be speaking Arabic. That's how your friends and neighbors
will treat you.
...wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism
[...] to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism
do not find fertile ground in any nation (NSS 6).
[These ideologies include opposition to] pro-growth legal and regulatory
policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial
activity (NSS 17).
"...to those who scare ...people with phantoms of lost liberty,
...[y]our tactics only aid terrorists ...[and] erode our national
unity..." (John Ashcroft qtd. (4) 12/07/2001).
It seems like
Americans would notice this kind of abuse, and vote to change it.
officials imply that the main check on the president's performance
in wartime is political, that if the public perceives his approach
to terrorism is excessive or ineffective, it will vote him out of
office (DP p. A11 12/1/2002 from Washington Post).
But that is
easy to stop. Opinions are now being shaped through partnerships with universities
that teach paranoia and fear as part of the mission of "protecting the homeland."
And the workforce has been bought off through lucrative contracts for the
development of new spy and weapons technology. Chances are, no matter what
your industry, you're in the loop. Nowadays, it's all about a creating a
out its mission, the Office shall ...carry out research, development,
testing, evaluation, and cost-benefit analyses in fields that would
improve the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of law enforcement
technologies used by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies,
including, but not limited to ...weapons...; [...] monitoring systems...;
[...] DNA ...technologies...; [...] [and] tools and techniques that
facilitate investigation of computer crime (HSA Sec 232).
The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, shall establish within 1 year of the date of enactment
of this Act a university-based center or centers for homeland security.
The purpose of this center or centers shall be to establish a coordinated,
university-based system to enhance the Nation's homeland security
(HSA Sec 308).
the quickest way to ensure that no one tries to vote for freedom is to just
blow something up, or at least make it seem like something's about
to blow up. Nothing works better than an anthrax scare to keep the heat
So, defeating the terrorists really would be a bad thing. That way, the
Ken Lay's of the world will get more control than they already have, and
employ people who are not only afraid of their government, but so afraid
of their boss that they are coerced into political silence.
DP: Daily Press. Newspaper. Dec. 1, 2002. Newport News, VA: Tribune.
HSA: United States. (2002). Cong. House of Representatives. Homeland
Security Act of 2002. 107th Congress, H.R. 5005. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
NSS: United States (2002). White House. The National Security Strategy
of the United States of America. Washington: http://www.whitehouse.gov.
NYT: New York Times. Washington Edition. Newspaper. December 5, 2003.
New York, NY.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/ 2002/LAW/05/columns/fl.dean.cheney.5.24/index.html
(4) http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/ inv.ashcroft.testimony/index.html
this presentation has you asking questions, check out NewsKing.com
for additional articles and presentations, as well as links
and other sites where answers are waiting! Click HERE
to visit NewsKing.com!
© Copyright 1998-2004 T.J. Newton. Click HERE
to read the terms and conditions of copyright. All rights reserved.