Let Freedom Ring! part 2

Counter PSYOP

(Part 2)

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself” – Thomas Paine

The “Torture Memos”

A transparent cue of a republic gong wrong is when torture becomes justified as a means of obtaining HUMINT (Human Intelligence). In other words, when authorities begin torturing people to obtain information; it means bad news for everyone.

The infamous Bybee Memo was sent from Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to Alberto R. Gonzales. The Aug. 1, 2002 dated document rendered wording from the Geneva Convention & a 1994 UN convention on torture to the U.S. administration’s own definition. Torture in their words, is pain that is “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." It must be done with “specific intent” to be considered torture.

Through these “torture memos,” the Executive branch and the DoJ have set a precedent for interpretive denial of torture. Torture can now be described as “pressure” or “stress or duress.” Techniques to deflect criticism of torture such as extraordinary rendition (or Torture by proxy) involve transferring suspects marked for extreme interrogation to black sites. In effect, those responsible for this are making torture, of all things, politically correct.

These broad definitions leave room for all sorts of real torture and interrogation methods to be used. The Bybee and other “torture memos” include the “ticking time bomb” scenario: what should the government do, if someone with apparent first-hand knowledge of a major terrorist plot is in custody? If traditional interrogation does not yield information, should authorities torture the suspect to obtain potentially life-saving information? The DoJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo’s answer: “Well, I think in this area, I think the Justice Department had long thought that Congress couldn't limit the commander-in-chief power; that Congress cannot tell the president how to exercise his judgment as commander in chief.”

The “ticking time bomb” scenario is very unlikely to ever occur. It is also questionable what results torture would have on a person who would already be ready to die for their cause. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, former Al-Qaeda member, confessed to nearly everything under “pressure.” In the mainstream media, talk of him being torture was panned, but it is clear he was. It is also clear that torture does not yield legitimately truthful information. He was arrested in 2003, and by March of 2007, had confessed to a plot against a Plaza Bank in Washington State. The problem is, this Plaza Bank was not even founded until 2006; making it nearly impossible for him to have been a part of any plot against it. Former CIA officer Bob Baer wrote, “There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated.”

Still, despite the endless debate as to whether torture could actually provide legitimate information key to saving American lives, it is wrong. It is wrong, because not only does it not yield “workable” information, but it is un-American. Yes, torturing our enemies is un-American!

Our government apparently thinks otherwise. According to our Justice Department, the decision to torture someone to obtain information would come down to the President’s decision. On Dec. 1, 2006, human rights scholar & Notre Dame professor had this exchange with John Yoo:

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Yoo implies that the President can order to torture the children of an “enemy combatant” if the President has a “reasonable cause”…Everyone should be outraged at this. This line of thinking goes back to the distortion of the Constitution that began with the Patriot Act. To suggest that torture of children is fine when the President makes a decision to do so, is paramount to the completion of an evil dystopian society.

Torture is un-American. It is not only unethical, it is evil. Torturers are considered to be among the evilest people to forensic psychiatrists. Tormenting the enemy combatants indefinitely held is what the real Islamic fascists and extremists want our government to do, to agitate the beehive that is the Mideast. President Bush claimed that we were attacked on 9-11 because of our freedom. If this is so, and we give up our liberties, and treat enemy combatants inhumanely, we are doing what the terrorists want Americans to do!

Islamic fascists & terrorists want us to bend laws and sidestep our sacred liberty to “fight the war on terror.” These terrorists want America to weaken from the inside. Al-Qaeda wants our own fears to fuel the fire that will ignite our own Bill of Rights and Constitution, indeed our own American ideals. This is simply the historical precedent of how terrorists operate! Yet, when we have given up our own freedom and approved torture of other human beings, the terrorists have already won!

Let Freedom Ring! (and let Big Brother record it?!)

Counter PSYOP

(Part 1)

The foundation that the Global War on Terrorism is built on is one of the September 11th terrorist attacks; based on “Islamic-fascists” Mujahideen committing Jihad against the U.S.A. Even though there is much evidence contrary to the official “conspiracy theory”; the outcome of the Global War on Terror and its domestic implications are likely greater than the attacks themselves. The reaction has been a more severe variable in the equation than the problem in itself.

The Patriot Act was almost certainly written prior to the 9/11 attacks. The 342-page bill went from being distributed to being passed in hours. Legislator after legislator have admitted that they did not have a chance to read it. Yet, they use the Orwellian title of “Patriot” Act on a piece of legislation in the wake of 9/11. Sadly, even a legislative document that distorts the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, our liberty itself can be passed easily in the Congress of the 21st century.

We shall not give up our liberty as citizens despite the fact a great tragedy took place because of a terrorist organization called Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, a group translated literally “the Base” as in the database file on CIA computers that contained lists of Mujahideen. These are the same Islamic radicals our intelligence services used to fight a proxy war against Soviets in 80’s Afghanistan. The same Al-Qaeda that helped trained the Kosovo Liberation Army; the faction the U.S.A. supported in the Kosovo conflict.

I'd like to reiterate - It is not American to give up our liberty for Al-Qaeda, oligarchs, authoritarians, cures to disease, or a solution to climate change. We should never let go of our freedom, regardless the reason. I for one, would rather walk the streets in fear and yet a freeman; as opposed to walking among a completely controlled and oppressed nation.

Edmund Burke once said, “Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.”

Much legislation has been passed since 9/11 (and prior to it, of course) that drastically endangers our freedom as United States Citizens; as human beings.

I would say the following are the prime suspects in setting this dangerous precedent: The Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the “Torture memos,” the Military Commissions Act, and the John Werner Defense Act, in addition to Presidential Directives.

The Patriot Act

The chief problem with the Patriot Act (H. R. 3162) is this: While eroding our rights by allowing comprehensive surveillance, it also acts to remove the vital checks & balances that were put into place by our founding fathers to prevent jeopardizing the Republic. (Contrary to what I was taught in American public schools, America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.) The Act is also written in a manner that it covers civil issues and crime, although it was supposedly written to address specifically terrorism. This has resulted in all sorts of abuses, not to mention taxpayer money.

Much has been written about it, so I will briefly cover some of the more disturbing details. The travesty that is § 213 allows secret “sneak & peak” searches of your home or business by the authorities, without a warrant. All that is needed is “reasonable cause.” From the Patriot Act analysis by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC.org): “This significant change in the law applies to all government searches for material that "constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States" and is not limited to investigations of terrorist activity…The expansion of this extraordinary authority to all searches constitutes a radical departure from Fourth Amendment standards and could result in routine surreptitious entries by law enforcement agents.”

§ 215 allows the FBI to request "the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" if it is deemed relevant to an investigation. The FBI can then issue a National Security Letter, to notify your postman, librarian, Internet Service Provider (ISP), cell provider, etc. about their “reasonable cause” for surveillance. This situation of a service-provider complying with them to spy on you, or risking their career and their own rights to protect yours, is a tragic case study in 21^st century America.

§ 503 actually stipulates collection of a DNA database, ostensibly for terrorism, but the writing is so broad that any citizen committing “any crime of violence” would be subject to being forced to submit a DNA sample.

Congress couldn’t just destroy the country in one piece of legislation though, so more work had to be done. The government is using incremental legislation in order to eventually produce their desired dystopian effect.