On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:22:17 -0800, you wrote: > > On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 10:07 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1 > > Policing Bioterror Research > > One of science's hottest fields is now becoming one of its most heavily > regulated, too. The U.S. government last week unveiled sweeping new > bioterror research regulations that will require 20,000 scientists at > nearly 1000 laboratories to beef up security--or face hefty fines and jail > sentences. The interim rules, due to go into effect early next year, could > also force scientists to get prior approval for a growing list of > sensitive experiments. > > And where in the United States Constitution is there provision > for controlling which experiments may be done, for what research > articles may be published, for what thoughts may be thought?
I regret to inform you that henceforth, the Constitution and derivative laws will be used only in a public relations sense as a symbol of the legitimacy of the government, rather than as a written delineation of the firm limitations on the powers of government. Previously, the United States Government claimed a monopoly on intimidation and violence within its borders, and it occasionally added other locales such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc. Currently, it is extending that claim of monopoly world wide, and it is adding to its proscribed list any "precursors" that could aid, support, fund, hide, protect or otherwise further any power to intimidate and apply violence other than that of the United States and its surrogates, most notably the UK. The precursors will include privacy, in any form, particularly encryption (unless its use is deemed a worthwhile flag for focused surveillance); associations with others, such as any loyal following or set of like-minded independent people that might be led in some direction not of Washington's choosing; information about the actions and plans of government, since that enables interference and could damage public acquiescence to necessary national security measures; financial resources, other than those that pass through verified identity gatekeepers; knowledge of the law, and the process of capturing, obtaining intelligence through torture, and imprisoning people, as that gives a balance of power and a sympathetic public forum to targets; and so on. Intersections of those precursors, such as privacy and financial resources, or information and private associations, will be particularly attacked. Not even a massive database on Americans designed by a former disgraced National Security Advisor who was convicted of 5 felonies involving shipping shoulder fired missiles to Iran, lying to Congress, funding US-supported terrorism in Nicaragua that was prohibited by law, seems to earn any concern from the sheep. Not even the selected suspension of Habeas Corpus draws a crowd in opposition. It is quite interesting to see how the evisceration of the Bill of Rights is essentially accepted unopposed. No marches in the streets, no demonstrations, no uproar from the liberal media, no effective political opposition as the Democrats and Republicans are competing only in which can be most draconian, as they practiced in setting the imprisonment penalties in the "war on drugs". The frog is being boiled by upping the thermostat a degree at a time, and it is just happily basking in the warming waters, trusting its attendant to protect its interests, in the name of National Security. Lest one blame this president or his party, consider that there is no daylight between the parties on these measures. The only debate we hear among our politicians is whether or not to preemptively do a Pearl Harbor on Iraq with or without a UN stamp of acquiescence. A war must be fought to provide a clearer reason for and distraction from the rise of fascism. If the people can be rewarded with cheaper gas at the pump as a bonus, then the highly-favorable body bag count of an imminently- videoable war from 40,000 feet and cheaper energy will ensure a continuing grant of carte blanc to the government. Have you heard Gore or Kerry or Edwards or Daschle or Gebhardt or others bemoan the designation of Americans as "enemy combatants"? Have the Democrats opposed the "USA Patriot Act"? Have the minority members of intelligence commitees demanded information on how powers of grabbing bookseller and library records is being used? No. This competition is one between free people and government-in-lockstep, and almost all of the people accept the ever-warming impositions of government out of custom, accepting the terrorism fear-mongering and long practice, further advanced by a gross ignorance of history. We are witnessing the rise of a fascist state unlike any other in history, in that this fascist state is the world's sole superpower, positioned by technology, wealth, and military might to prevent the rise of any competing superpower. And domestically, as penalties for various behaviors are increased, and those behaviors penalized are multiplied exponentially, it becomes a simple matter to build a model of optimization: Choose between confessing to a plea bargain (in spite of your innocence) that will make you a felon, but which will allow you to remain outside the walls of a prison under close supervision and harsh restrictions or spend a half million dollars (or accept the public defender's efforts) over a couple of years in legal processes in which your opponent has unlimited staff, information resources, funding and power to reward its collaborators, during which you are jailed, facing a 20% chance that you will be convicted in spite of your innocence and then face a judge with the power to incarcerate you until the day you die in prison. At some point, are you going to love Big Brother?
