Fascism - 1... a. Totalitarianism
marked by right-wing dictatorship and bellicose nationalism.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. - The American
My fellow Americans:
"On what legal meat does this our
Caesar feed?" wrote New York Times Columnist William
Safire as he blasted President Bush's November 13 emergency
order permitting noncitizens the government has "reason
to believe" are terrorists to be tried - inside the
U.S - by military tribunals. These trials may be held
in secret and the prosecutors do not have to produce evidence
if it is "in the interests of national security."
And the condemned may then be executed "even if a
third of the officers disagree." Safire categorized
this as a "dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens."
Bush's proclamation is a nullification of the 6th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time that Caesar
Bush was announcing this edict the Justice Department
was announcing - as reported in the AP on November 15
- that it will not disclose the identities or status of
more than 1,100 people arrested or detained since September
11th, nor will it continue to release a running tally
of those detained.
As the anxiety level rises in you, you
think, "Well, I'm a citizen so I don't have anything
to worry about."
Try harder to refocus on your Christmas
list, Harry Potter and your job.
On October 26th - a date which will live
in infamy - the President signed the USA/PATRIOT act,
officially known as HR 3162. And you should well note
that, according to Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas
- as reported on November 9th by Kelly O'Meara of the
Washington Times' Insight Magazine - the bill had not
even been printed and members of the House could not read
it before they were compelled to vote on it. O'Meara wrote,
"Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new bill
were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it."
Most of its provisions have nothing to do with fighting
terrorism. Under this so-called anti-terrorist measure:
Any federal law enforcement agency may enter your home
or business when you are not there, collect evidence,
not tell you about it, and then use that evidence to convict
you of a crime; (This nullifies the 4th Amendment to the
Constitution). And, says the ACLU, it doesn't even have
to be a terrorism investigation, just a criminal investigation.
[Section 213 - The Sneak and Peek provision].
Any federal law enforcement agency may, if they suspect
that you are committing a crime, monitor all of you internet
traffic and read your emails. They may also intercept
all of your cell phone calls as well. No warrant is required.
(This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
Constitution) [Section 202 and 216] [See FTW on Carnivore,
Vol. IV, No.2 - April 30, 2001].
The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency may
come to your business and seize any of your business records
- if they claim it is connected with a terrorist investigation
- and they can arrest you if you tell anyone that they
were there. (this violates the First and the Fourth Amendments
to the Constitution) [Title II, Section 501]
The CIA can now operate inside the U.S. and spy on American
citizens. And, as directed by AG Ashcroft on November
13, it is also permitted to share its intelligence files
with local law enforcement agencies (and vice versa).
The CIA has spied on Americans for decades, but the fruits
of that spying have never been admissible in court. Now
law enforcement will have the ability rewrite the intelligence
as a probable cause statement, conduct an investigation
and introduce it as evidence. This, from material that
was collected outside the rules of search and seizure.
(There goes the Exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment).
[Titles 2 & 9].
The foundation for an international secret political police
agency is laid by allowing the CIA to receive wiretap
information from any local agency and then share it with
the intelligence services of any foreign country. [Section
So now a darkness begins to sink over
your consciousness. You are mad, first at me, and then
you are not quite sure of what to be mad at - but you
know you're mad. Reaching through a guilty conscience
you check with yourself and beg of your soul the permission
to take the position that you never break any laws. None!
You're a good citizen of the Homeland, a good German -
I mean American. What can you do anyway?
Then I arouse your rage at me even further
by telling you that Section 802 of HR 3162 defines domestic
terrorism as "activities that - involve acts dangerous
to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws
of the United States:... and "appear to be intended
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or
"to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
Under this definition the blocking of
a driveway at a federal building or defending yourself
when attacked by good "Germans" at a protest
march - while protesting these violations of the Constitution
- could instantly make you a "domestic terrorist"
and subject to some of the stiffest penalties ever enacted
Next, as you retreat further, covering
your ears and mind, shutting out the crime that is being
perpetrated by your government - against you - you will
lash out at me and say, "Look Ruppert, I read the
Bill. There's a ĹSunset Clause' in it. All this stuff
goes away after four years. It's just for the duration
of the terrorist emergency."
Not so. Under Section 224 (b) "With
respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation
that began before the date on which the provisions referred
to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect
to any particular offense or potential offense that began
or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease
to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect."
In other words, if the government says that their desire
to burglarize, or wiretap you or search your files is
part of an investigation that started before December
31, 2005, there is no sunset clause. This could be for
a "potential" offense. What is a potential offense?
Something you thought about? Something you might have
Now thoroughly uncomfortable you reach
for more straw teddy bears. And I, like a hunter smelling
victory, will close in on you with words that will both
reassure you and make you a grown up. Upon reviewing HR
3162 Congressman Paul said to reporter O'Meara, "Our
forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This
is why they revolted in the first place... They revolted
against much more mild oppression."
Mao once said that "Revolution is
not a dinner party." You squirm in your seat.
OK, The Congressman's noble words stirred
you for a moment, made you think of Mel Gibson in "The
Patriot." But you realize that you're not Mel Gibson,
you're out of shape, you have bills to pay, a vacation
coming soon. Reaching again, you realize something. "Wait!
This is a law. It was passed. It's proof that there are
checks and balances.
I'm coming to get you now.
Beyond The Law
On November 9th, Attorney General Ashcroft
announced that he was ordering the Justice Department
to begin wiretapping and monitoring attorney-client communications
in terrorist cases where the suspect was incarcerated.
This was not even discussed in HR 3162. That same day
Senator Patrick Leahy (D), Vermont wrote to Ashcroft.
He had many questions to ask about what the Justice Department
had been doing by violating the trust of Congress and
assuming powers which were not authorized by either law
or the Constitution. Leahy even quoted a Supreme Court
case (U.S. v. Robel): "[T]his concept of "national
defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying
any exercise of... power designed to promote such a goal.
Implicit in the term Ĺnational defense' is the notion
that defending those values and ideas which set this Nation
apart... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national
defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those
liberties... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
Leahy asked Ashcroft by what authority
had he decided - on his own and without judicial review
- to nullify the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
He asked for an explanation and some description of the
procedural safeguards that Ashcroft would put in place.
He asked Ashcroft to appear before the Judiciary committee
and to respond in writing by November 13.
His answer came a little late. On November
16, Patrick Leahy received an anthrax letter. And, as
of this press time, Ashcroft has not responded in writing.
I've got you now.
Moving up the ladder we come to the Vice
President, Dick Cheney. The Washington Post reported on
November 9 that all summer a major Constitutional clash
had been brewing as the former head of oil giant Halliburton
refused to surrender to Congress' investigative arm, the
GAO, records from his energy task force. The Post story
said, "Comptroller General David M. Walker described
the fight as a direct threat to the GAO's reason for being,
a separation-of-powers issue that would determine whether
the legislative branch could exercise the oversight role
envisioned by the founding fathers." But the Sept
11th attacks have changed all that. A planned suit by
the GAO against Cheney to get the records of his task
force on oil has been put on hold. Cheney's violation
of the law goes unchallenged in the goose-stepped march
of manufactured polls showing support for the administration.
Congressman Henry Waxman (D), CA has blasted Cheney on
constitutional grounds but there's little else he can
do in the current climate.
And now we come to your President, the
guy we started with, by asking what "legal meat"
he eats. Apparently he eats anything he damned well pleases.
On November 1st, after several months of delays, George
W, Bush broke the law himself by changing an Executive
Order and declaring that in this national emergency he
was going to prevent the release of papers from the Reagan
presidency, even though release is mandated by The Presidential
Records Act of 1978.
Of what use could these papers
be to Osama bin Laden?
These papers would probably shed glaring
light on the criminality of the Reagan-Bush (the elder)
years of Iran-Contra, the savings and loan plundering
of American taxpayers and the hand-over-fist drug dealing
by the CIA at the direction of G.H.W. Bush. But now, in
violation of the law, you will never see them. Nor will
you likely ever see the papers from the 89-93 Bush Presidency,
or the Clinton years - not to mention those of the current
administration. What a convenient way to cover up criminal
Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D), Ill,
and the ever-brave Henry Waxman rose to the challenge
and wrote Bush a letter on November 6th. They said in
closing, "These provisions clearly violate the intent
of the law...The Executive Order violates the intent of
Congress and keeps the public in the dark. We urge you
to rescind this executive order and instead begin a dialogue
with Congress and the public to determine the need for
clarification of this law."
Any bets as to who gets the next anthrax
letter? Have you noticed that only Democrats have been
So now you retreat, your decision has
been made. Do nothing. This will all go away. In a last
gasp of intellectual, pretzel-bending logic you think,
"Wait! We still have the Supreme Court."
This is the same Supreme Court that illegally
handed George W. Bush the 2000 election. This is the court
that stopped and delayed hand counting long enough to
prevent the final results from being known. Those results
- as buried by the major media in horrendously dishonest
stories released last week - were written as supporting
the Supreme Court's decision to stop the recounts. And
based on that decision, the media recount gave Bush the
victory. But, as noted by EXTRA! Editor Jim Naureckas
in a November 15 Newsday story, the media found that it
was quite possible, by examining rejected ballots, to
determine the "clear intent of the voter." Yet
none of these ballots were included in the media recount
and all of the media organizations recognized that, had
those ballots been counted, Al Gore would have won.
As constitutional lawyer Mark H. Levine
noted in a December 20, 2000 editorial, what the Supreme
Court did was to create a one-case only exception where
the "clear intent of the voter" - as dictated
by Florida law - was no longer applicable standard. By
stopping the hand count and overturning the Florida Supreme
Court's correct reading of its own law, it delayed the
recount long enough to force a crisis where it could overrule
Florida and deliver the election to Bush while thousands
of ballots went uncounted.
So much for the Supreme Court.
One of the greatest decisions to ever
come out the Supreme Court - when it was one - was rendered
in 1866 after the civil war. The case in question was
Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
in arresting protesters and rioters. As recently quoted
in an eloquent November 15 article by David Dietman, an
attorney and Ph.D. candidate from Erie Pennsylvania, the
"The Constitution of the United
States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and
in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection
all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.
No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was
ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions
can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of
- Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
So all you have left to put your faith,
or your fear, in - as you see it - is the President. You
have no faith in yourself, no faith in God, no trust in
your fellow citizens and no willingness to experience
discomfort. You fail to praise, support and uplift all
of the courage that is beginning to reveal itself around
you. You draw your blinds and wave your flags hoping for
divine intervention before your name or your job comes
up on the list. You are a good German, like the Germans
who followed Hitler and allowed him to start a war that
killed hundreds of millions of people.
And when it is all over, when they come
for me, when they come for you, when they come for your
job - when history sheds it inevitable light on
the criminals that today rule our country - you will say,
"I didn't do anything wrong."
Oh yes you did.
Oh yes you did.
To read Kelly O'Meara's article on HR 3162
please go to: