Re: Those who doubted Iraqis

In article <mdl9p1t15rgor9qj9l79r16r3hclmp8mi1@xxxxxxx>, Nada@xxxxxxxxx (Tango)
wrote:

> >here in the still semi-free nation of the UK,
>
> What was that number of cameras that watch every move you make in
> public? That type of surveillance is reserved for criminals in my
> country. Not the general populace.

Have you been to New York lately? Oh what a silly question; of course you
haven't or you would not make such a ridiculous statement.

> What was it I heard recently about the new law passed in your country
> that forbids using language that doesn't suit the government?

I do believe that was your country under the new Hate Speech laws.

> Semi-free my ass. Young man, you're already in a prison. I'd worry
> more of your own situation then of those that are so seemingly vague
> to your understanding.
>
> >a significant
> >part of our population has protested the illegal occupation of Iraq from day
> >1.
>
> Well ***, Sherlock. A significant part of my population has protested
> the illegal occupation of Iraq from before day 1. Hell, I know people
> who have been protesting the government for longer than you've been
> alive. A *** load of em. Right here in the USA. Do you think England
> has a monopoly of protest? *** man, there are five Americans for
> every single one of you Brit's.
>
> >Unfortunately our slimy leader values Bush's tidbits more than the
> >wishes of his own electorate, but he has been punished for that - you'll
> >have heard of George Galloway MP perhaps?
>
> No, I don't keep up on the politics in England. I have heard quite a
> lot about what a great leader your Prime Minister Blair is, however.
> Your "slimy leader" is the Queen, isn't it? If I remember correctly,
> the Prime Minister answers to her, which would make her your "slimy
> leader".

*s**** Unfortunately for Bliar, which is how we spell it,

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1658999,00.html

MPs and peers say anti-terror bill would fail human rights test in court

How is that "Patriot Act" passed by your own slimy leader?

> I'm sorry, I got side tracked. You were saying something about
> America?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1659243,00.html

"Extraordinary and unacceptable" is the words they use.

And:

http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/020205-what_is_counterintel.php

*splash* The Sound of American Freedom as it goes right over Niagara Falls.

http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/2005/11/american-freedom.html

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=4637

The Emergence of the Homeland Security State
by Nick Turse and Tom Engelhardt

Since ancient Rome, imperial republics have invariably felt a tension between
cherished republican practices at home and distinctly unrepublican ones abroad;
or put another way, if imperial practices spread far enough beyond the
republic's borders and gain enough traction out there in the imperium, sooner or
later they also make the reverse journey home, and then you have a crisis in ?
or simply the destruction of ? the republic itself. The urge of the Bush
administration to bring versions of the methods it's applying abroad back home
is already palpable; the urge to free the President, as "commander-in-chief" in
the "war on terror," from all the old fetters, those boring, restraining checks
and balances, those inconvenient liberties won by Americans ? so constraining,
so troublesome to deal with ? is equally palpable.

Back in the Watergate era, we had a would-be imperial president, Richard M.
Nixon, who provoked a constitutional crisis. Actually, it amounted to a near
constitutional coup d'état ? and if you don't believe me, check out The Time of
Illusion, Jonathan Schell's classic work on the subject. Now, it seems, we're in
Watergate II, but without a Democratic Congress, a critical media, or a powerful
antiwar movement (yet). All we have at the moment is the constitutional crisis
part of the equation, various simmering scandals, a catastrophic war abroad, and
an ever more powerful military-industrial-security complex at home. And we're
not just talking urges here, we're talking acts. We're talking programs. We're
talking the continual blurring of distinctions between the domestic and the
foreign, the civilian and the military, between liberties at home and "securing
the Homeland." The problem is, we can only guess at the extent of that
"securing" process because so much is clearly happening just beyond our sight
(or oversight).

Below, in the first of a two-part series, Nick Turse, who follows the
military-corporate complex regularly for Tomdispatch, offers as solid a sense as
we are likely to get right now of the outlines of the new Homeland Security
State being created within the bounds of the old republic. Let's face it, this
is frightening stuff, but too important not to read.

Bringing It All Back Home:
The Emergence of the Homeland Security State
By Nick Turse

Part I: The Military Half

If you're reading this on the Internet, the FBI may be spying on you at this
very moment.

Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the Department of Justice has been
collecting e-mail and IP (a computer's unique numeric identifier) addresses,
without a warrant, using trap-and-trace surveillance devices ("pen-traps"). Now,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice's principal investigative arm, may
be monitoring the web-surfacing habits of Internet users ? also without a search
warrant ? that is, spying on you with no probable cause whatsoever.

In the wake of September 11, 2001, with the announcement of a potentially
never-ending "war on terror" and in the name of "national security," the Bush
administration embarked on a global campaign that left in its wake two
war-ravaged states (with up to one hundred thousand civilian dead in just one of
them); an offshore "archipelago of injustice" replete with "ghost jails" and a
seemingly endless series of cases of torture, abuse, and the cold-blooded murder
of prisoners. That was abroad. In the U.S., too, things have changed as America
became "the Homeland" and an already powerful and bloated national security
state developed a civilian corollary fed by fear-mongering, partisan politics,
and an insatiable desire for governmental power, turf, and budget.

A host of disturbing and mutually-reinforcing patterns have emerged in the
resulting new Homeland Security State ? among them: a virtually unopposed
increase in the intrusion of military, intelligence, and "security" agencies
into the civilian sector of American society; federal abridgment of basic
rights; denials of civil liberties on flimsy or previously illegal premises;
warrantless sneak-and-peak searches; the wholesale undermining of privacy
safeguards (including government access to library circulation records, bank
records, and records of internet activity); the greater empowerment of secret
intelligence courts (like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court) that
threaten civil liberties; and heavy-handed federal and local law enforcement
tactics designed to chill, squelch, or silence dissent.

While it's true that most Americans have yet to feel the brunt of such policies,
select groups, including Muslims, Arab immigrants, Arab-Americans, and antiwar
protesters, have served as test subjects for a potential Homeland Security
juggernaut that, if not stopped, will only expand.

The Military Brings It All Back Home

Over the past few years we've become familiar with General John Abizaid's
Central Command (CENTCOM) whose "areas of responsibility" (AORs) stretch from
the Horn of Africa to Central Asia, including, of course, the Iraq war zone.
Like CENTCOM, the U.S. has other commands that blanket the rest of the world,
including the Pacific Command (PACCOM, established in 1947) and the European
Command (EURCOM, established in 1952). In 2002, however, the Pentagon broke new
command ground by deciding, after a fashion, to bring war to the Homeland. It
established the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) whose AOR is "America's
homefront."

NORTHCOM is much more forthright about what it supposedly doesn't do than what
it actually does. Its website repeatedly, in many forms, notes that NORTHCOM is
not a police auxiliary and that the Reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus Act
prevents the military from meddling much in domestic affairs. Despite this,
NORTHCOM readily, if somewhat vaguely, admits to "a cooperative relationship
with federal agencies" and "information-sharing" among organizations. NORTHCOM's
commander General Ralph "Ed" Eberhart, who, the Wall Street Journal notes, is
the "first general since the Civil War with operational authority exclusively
over military forces within the U.S," was even more blunt when he told PBS's
Newshour "[W]e are not going to be out there spying on people[, but] we get
information from people who do."

Even putting NORTHCOM aside, the military has recently been creeping into
civilian life in all sorts of ways. Back in 2003, for instance, Torch Concepts,
an Army sub-contractor, was given JetBlue's entire 5.1 million passenger
database, without the knowledge or consent of those on the list, for data-mining
? a blatant breach of civilian privacy that the Army nonetheless judged not to
violate the federal Privacy Act. Then, in 2004, Army intelligence agents were
caught illegally investigating civilians at a conference on Islam at the
University of Texas law school in Austin.

And just recently, on the very same day the Washington Post reported that "the
Pentagon? [has] created a new espionage arm and is reinterpreting U.S. law to
give Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld broad authority over clandestine
operations abroad," the New York Times reported that, as part of the
"extraordinary army of 13,000 troops, police officers and federal agents
marshaled to secure the [Presidential] inauguration," the Pentagon had deployed
"super-secret commandos? with state-of-the-art weaponry" in the nation's
capitol. This was done under government directives that undercut the Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878. According to the Times, the black-ops cadre, based out at
the ultra-secretive Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, is operating under "a secret counterterrorism program code-named Power
Geyser," a program just recently brought to light in Code Names, a new book by a
former intelligence analyst for the Army, William M. Arkin, who says that the
"special-mission units [are being used] in extra-legal missions?in the United
States" on the authority of the Department of Defense's Joint Staff and with the
support of the DoD's Special Operations Command and NORTHCOM.

Courtesy of the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, we've known for some time of the
creation of "a secret unit that was given advance approval to kill or capture
and interrogate 'high-value' suspects?" in the name of the War on Terror. Some
of us may have even known that since 1989, in the name of the War on Drugs,
there has been a multi-service command, (comprised of approximately 160
soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and Department of Defense operatives) known
as Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), providing "support to federal, regional, state
and local law enforcement agencies throughout the continental United States."
Now, we know as well that there are an unknown number of commando squads
operating in the U.S. ? in the name of the war at home. Just how many and
exactly what they may up to we cannot know for sure since spokespersons for the
relevant Army commands refuse to offer comment and Pentagon spokesman Bryan
Whitman will only say that "At any given time, there are a number of classified
programs across the government" and that Power Geyser "may or may not exist."

The emergence of an American Homeland Security State has allowed the Army to
fundamentally alter its historic role, transforming what was once illegal and
then exceptional ? deploying Federal troops in support of (or acting as)
civilian law enforcement agencies ? into standard operating procedure. But the
Army is not alone in its homefront meddling. While the Army was thwarted in its
attempt to strong-arm University of Texas officials into releasing a videotape
of their conference on Islam, the Navy used arm-twisting to greater effect on a
domestic government agency. The Wall Street Journal reports that, in 2003, the
Office of Naval Intelligence badgered the U.S. Customs Service to hand over its
database on maritime trade. At first, the Customs Service resisted the Navy's
efforts, but in the post-9/11 atmosphere, like other agencies on the civil side
of the ledger, it soon caved to military pressure. In an ingenuous message sent
to the Wall Street Journal, the commissioner of the Department of Homeland
Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Robert C. Bonner, excused
handing over the civilian database by stating that he had received "Navy
assurances that the information won't be abused."

While the Army, Navy, and NORTHCOM naturally profess to having no nefarious
intent in their recent civil-side forays, history suggests wariness on the
subject. After all, the pre-Homeland-Security military already had a long
history of illegal activity and illegal domestic spying (much of which came to
light in the late 1960s and early 1970s) ? and never suffered social stigma, let
alone effectual legal or institutional consequences for its repeated
transgressions.

NORTHCOM now proudly claims that it has "a cooperative relationship with federal
agencies working to prevent terrorism." So you might wonder: Just which other
"federal agencies" does NORTHCOM ? which shouldn't be sharing information about
American civilians with anyone ? share information with? The problem is, the
range of choices in the world of American intelligence alone is staggering. If
you've read (or read about) the 9/11 Commission Report, you may have seen the
now almost iconic figure of 15 military and civilian intelligence agencies
bandied about. That in itself may seem a startling total for the nation's
intelligence operations, but, in addition to the CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI and others
in the "big 15" of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), there exist a whole
host of shadowy, half-known, and little understood, if well-acronymed,
intelligence/military/security-related offices, agencies, advisory
organizations, and committees such as the Counterintelligence Field Activity
(CIFA), the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO), the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) and the President's Intelligence
Oversight Board (IOB); the Department of Defense's own domestic cop corps, the
Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA); and the Intelligence's Community's
internal watchdog, the Defense Security Service (DSS).

Think of these various arms of intelligence and the military as the essential
cast of characters in our bureaucratically proliferating Homeland Security State
where everybody, it seems, is eager to get in on the act. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in the operations center of the Department of Homeland Security.
In its horse-shoe shaped war-room, the "FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, and 33
other federal agencies each has its own workstation. And so do the police
departments of New York, Los Angeles, Washington and six other major cities." In
the operations center, large signs on walls and doors command: "Our Mission: To
Share Information"; and, to facilitate this, in its offices local police
officers sit just "a step or two away from the CIA and FBI operatives who are
downloading the latest intelligence coming into those agencies." With all
previous lines between domestic and foreign, local and federal spying, policing,
and governmental oversight now blurring, this (according to outgoing Homeland
Security Secretary Tom Ridge) is "the new model of federalism" in action.

>From the military to local governments, from ostensibly civilian federal
agencies to obscure counter-intelligence organizations, they're all on the make,
creating interagency alliances, setting up new programs, expanding their powers,
gearing up operations and/or creating "Big Brother" technologies to more
effectively monitor civilians, chill dissent, and bring the war back home. Right
now, nothing is closer to the heart of Homeland Security State officials (and to
their budgetary plans) than that old standby of dictatorships and oppressive
regimes worldwide, surveillance ? by and of the Homeland population. In fact,
almost every day, new examples of ever-hopeful surveillance programs pop up. Of
course, as yet, we only have clues to the well-classified larger Homeland
surveillance picture, but even what we do know of the growing public face of
surveillance in America should cause some eyes to roll. Here's a brief overview
of just a few of the less publicized, but mostly public, attempts to ramp up the
eye-power of the Homeland Security State.

Saying NCIX

A little known member of the alphabet soup of federal agencies is the Office of
the National Counterintelligence Executive (more familiarly known by the
unpronounceable acronym NCIX) ? an organization whose main goal is "to improve
the performance of the counterintelligence (CI) community in identifying,
assessing, prioritizing and countering intelligence threats to the United
States." To accomplish this task, NCIX now offers that ultimate necessity for
Homeland security, downloadable "counterintelligence and security awareness
posters." One features the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution
("?Congress shall make no law? prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech?") and the likeness of Thomas Jefferson, but
with a new addendum which reads: "American freedom includes a responsibility to
protect U.S. security ? leaking sensitive information erodes this freedom."

Another NCIX poster might come straight out of the old Soviet East Germany:
"America's Security is Your Responsibility. Observe and Report." While NCIX is
an obscure agency, its decision to improve on the First Amendment and a
fundamental American freedom is indicative of where our Homeland Security State
is heading; and the admonition to "Observe and Report" catches its spirit
exactly.

Every Wo/Man a G-Man

Prior to the Republican National Convention in New York City, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation sent agents across the country in what was widely seen as a
blatant attempt to harass, intimidate, and frighten potential protesters. The
FBI, however, countered by professing that "we have always followed the rules,
sensitive to Americans' constitutional rights to free speech and assembly,
always drawing the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity."

By the fall of 2004, however, FBI spokespeople had moved on from such anodyne
reassurances and, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, the
bureau was launching its "October Plan." According to a CBS news report, this
program consisted of "aggressive ? even obvious ? surveillance techniques to be
used on? people suspected of being terrorist sympathizers, but who have not
committed a crime" while "[o]ther 'persons of interest,' including their family
members, m[ight] also be brought in for questioning?"

While harassing citizens at home, the FBI, which can't set up a successful
internal computer system of its own (despite squandering at least $170 million
on the project), began dabbling in overseas e-censorship, by confiscating
servers in the United Kingdom from Indymedia, the activist media network website
"with apparently no explanation." As Ward Harkavy reported in the Village Voice,
"The network of activists has not been accused of breaking any laws. But all of
the material actually on some of its key servers and hard disks was seized."
More recently, the creator of an open-source tool designed to help internet
security experts scan networks, services, and applications says he's been
"pressured" by the FBI for copies of the web server log that hosts his website.

In addition to intimidation tactics and tech-centric activities, the FBI has
apparently been using Joint Terrorism Task Forces (teams of state and local law
enforcement officers, FBI and other federal agents) as well as local police to
conduct "political surveillance" of environmental activists as well as anti-war
and religious-based protest groups. The bureau is also eager to farm out such
work to ordinary Americans and has been calling on the public to do some
old-fashioned peeping through the blinds, just in case the neighbors are up to
"certain kinds of activities [that] indicate terrorist plans that are in the
works."

Into the Wild Blue Yonder

Strange as it may seem, the Air Force has also gotten into the local
surveillance act with an "Eagle Eyes" anti-terrorism initiative which "enlists"
average citizens in the "war on terror." The Eagle Eyes' website tells viewers:
"You and your family are encouraged to learn the categories of suspicious
behavior" and it exhorts the public to drop a dime to "a network of local,
24-hour phone numbers? whenever a suspicious activity is observed." Just what,
then, constitutes "suspicious activity"? Well, among activities worth alerting
the flying eagles to, there's the use of cameras (either still or video), note
taking of any sort, making annotations on maps, or using binoculars
(birdwatchers beware!). And what other patterns of behavior does the Air Force
think should send you running to the phone? A surefire indicator of terrorists
afoot: "Suspicious persons out of place?. People who don't seem to belong in the
workplace, neighborhood, business establishment, or anywhere else." Just ponder
that one for a moment ? and, if you ever get lost, be afraid, very afraid?

While the Air Force does grudgingly admit that "this category is hard to
define," it offers a classic you-know-it-when-you-see-it definition for calling
your local eagle: "The point is that people know what looks right and what
doesn't look right in their neighborhoods, office spaces, commutes [sic], etc,
and if a person just doesn't seem like he or she belongs?" An? ahem? urban
looking youth in a suburban white community? Call it in! A crusty punk near Wall
Street? Drop a dime! A woman near the White House wearing an anti-war t-shirt.
Well, that's an out-of-category no-brainer!

And, in fact, much of this has already begun to come true. After all,
"suspicious persons out of place" now do get arrested in the new Homeland
Security State for such offenses as wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, carrying
anti-Bush signs or just heckling the president. Today, even displaying an
anti-Bush sticker is, in the words of the Secret Service, apparently "borderline
terrorism." Holding a sign that reads, "This war is Bu***," warrants a citation
from the cops and, as an eleven year old boy found out, the sheriff might come
calling on you if you utter "anti-American" statements ? while parents may be
questioned by law enforcement officials to ascertain if they're teaching
"anti-American values" at home.

Nick Turse is a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History & Ethics of
Public Health in the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. He
writes for the Village Voice and regularly for Tomdispatch on the
military-corporate complex.

Copyright 2005 Nick Turse

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=4637

*s****

Lord Cerne Abbas

Humpty Dumpty Bush fell off the Iraq wall.
Humpty Dumpty Bush had a big fall.
All his spin doctors and all the President's men
couldn't put Humpty Dumpty Bush together again.

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/mylinks.html

http://www.john-lennon.com/


.

Loading