[EMAIL PROTECTED] This sums it all up in one neat, terrifying package. What can we do to fight back? > > > AlterNet - Posted on May 26, 2006, Printed on June 1, 2006 > > > TOP 10 SIGNS OF THE IMPENDING U.S. POLICE STATE > By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast > > Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it > may well be the case. > > > 1. The Internet Clampdown > > One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered > corporate conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are > spoon-fed predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, > the truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of > investigative reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. > Of course, it was only a matter of time before the government moved to > patch up this crack in the sky. > > Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying > lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are > gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of > the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an > "Information Operations Roadmap" > <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/> in 2003, signed by > Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as network attacks and > acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US propaganda planted > in other countries has easily found its way to Americans via the > internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling regulation > of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child pornography > and "internet predators," which will surely lead to legislation that by > far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats. > > > 2. "The Long War" > > This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave > away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor > is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on > Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long > as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will > eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of > civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit > spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, "get used > to it. Things aren't going to change any time soon." > > > 3. The USA PATRIOT Act > > Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this > disgusting power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your > house, look through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks > on a rubber stamp warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records > and library selections. Yes, they can pass along any information they > find without probable cause for purposes of prosecution. No, they're > not going to take it back, ever. > > > 4. Prison Camps > > This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton > subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention > centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified "new > programs." <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html> Of course, > the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve > rounding up Muslims or political dissenters -- I mean, obviously > detention facilities are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to > tell you about this, but it's, you know... secret. > > > 5. Touchscreen Voting Machines > > Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are > built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the > voting landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the > exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public's > enduring cluelessness. > > In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security > testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them > to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead > Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane > to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County > Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw > in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the > flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two > touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do > business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a > touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn't. > Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it will > resume servicing the county. > > Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have > done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 > conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this > century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is > ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm > elections will be an interesting test of the public's continuing > gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don't > win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is > kosher. > > Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. > We really need to fix this problem soon. > > > 6. Signing Statements > > Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to > simply nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has > issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous > presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their > corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe: > > ---- > Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise > subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. > > Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can > waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques > will assist in preventing terrorist attacks. > > ---- > Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by > government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to > Congress] uncensored and without delay." > > Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to > withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure > could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of > the executive branch. > > ---- > Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any > combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number > of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800. > > Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, > can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive > branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature." > ---- > > Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and > deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I > don't see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with > that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply > choose to ignore the ones he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a > veto, and can't be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It's also > totally absurd. > > > 7. Warrantless Wiretapping > > Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? > What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the > phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial > oversight and you think that's okay? Come on -- if you know anything > about history, you know that no government can be trusted to handle > something like this responsibly. One day they're listening for Osama, > and the next they're listening in on Howard Dean. > > Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no > judicial oversight, why on earth WOULDN'T they eavesdrop on, say, > Seymour Hersh, to figure out who's spilling the beans? It's a > no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already > knew we would try to spy on them. They don't care if we have a warrant > or not. But you should. > > > 8. Free Speech Zones > > I know it's old news, but... come on, are they fucking serious? > > > 9. High-ranking Whistleblowers > > Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House > cabinet members. These are the kind of people that Republicans > fantasize about being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for > some reason, when these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush > administration en masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American > publicity hounds. Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy > and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too > far, you had damn well better pay attention. We all know most of these > people are staunch Republicans. If the entire military except for the > two guys the Pentagon put in front of the press wants Rumsfeld out, why > on earth wouldn't you listen? > > > 10. The CIA Shakeup > > Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld > or Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and > they wouldn't be nominated if they weren't on board all the way. Goss > was probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked > defense contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate > hotel and some hookers. > > If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is > confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military > control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program > and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and > dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame > the CIA for "intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture > has clearly emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White > House's analysis of Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the > Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the > gang. > > Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about > deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? > Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with > Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire > organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and > newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they > want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they > can control, so the next time they lie about an "imminent threat" > nobody's going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a > "necessary reform." > > Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys? > > > © 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. > > SOURCE: <http://www.alternet.org/rights/36553/> > > > > > > HOW-TO-JOIN: Join Boston Blacks Online via the World Wide Web at > http://www.blackpeople.com/bbo > HOW-TO-LEAVE: To stop receiving mail from this list, send an email message > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a BLANK subject line and the message > leave bbo > Please note that NOTHING else should be in the message and the message > must be sent in plain text. If your mail is being sent in HTML, > the automated list manager will not be able to process your request. > If you are not removed, send a copy of whatever you sent > to the list manager to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please note that you will NOT receive any kind of personal > assistance until AFTER you have attempted to remove yourself via the > automated list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * > BlackPeople.com is one of the Communiversal Electronic Communities > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away.� Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/LRMolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
