-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.4/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.4/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 4</A> The Laissez Faire City Times January 25, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 4 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ----- Navigating the New Archipelago by Sunni Maravillosa Several months ago, I read The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I’d read quite a bit of Russian/Soviet history and visited Dachau on a European trip, so I thought I was prepared for this account of the Soviet system’s abuses of its citizens. I also thought reading the book would be informative but not particularly emotional for me. I was completely wrong. In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn recounts his experiences as a political prisoner in the Soviet camp system. The term "archipelago" refers to a chain of islands, usually in a specific sea. The metaphor of the title is deftly, chillingly explored with a haunting dignity that brings tears to my eyes every time I think about it. Solzhenitsyn touches on every aspect of life—if it can be called that—in the prison system. From the proverbial knock on the door in the middle of the night to the day of his release, Solzhenitsyn tells his tale with consummate skill. Any reader with imagination can feel the outrage at false testimony given, the helplessness of knowing the sentence before the trial begins, the jabs—both physical and psychological—of the prison guards as well as those of other prisoners higher in the prison social strata, and the surge of wry laughter that inevitably swells—even in such places!—at the absurdity of Soviet laws and the senseless system that defined crime and meted out punishment. As heart-wrenching as The Gulag Archipelago is, the most shocking revelation came not from Solzhenitsyn’s ordeal, but from a realization I had while reading: here, in the "freest" country in the world, our own evil archipelago is rising from the depths. What else can one conclude, after examining the patterns around us? Here’s some evidence to consider: •Richard Jewell was the prime suspect in the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing. The FBI, wanting to build their case against him, fed him misleading information and tried to keep him from seeing his lawyer. The unsubstantiated accusations—fueled by media coverage—ruined Jewell’s reputation. •The DEA came after Peter McWilliams—at 6 a.m. on a December morning—in what appeared to be an attempt to silence his protests against the War on Drugs. A search revealed nothing that was illegal among his possessions. Despite that, McWilliams was later arrested and jailed on "drug conspiracy" charges. Ridiculous terms were set for his bail, and essential medications—McWilliams has both cancer and AIDS—were denied him. •The justice system aids and abets abuse of the state’s power so frequently that it should be called the "just us" system. No law enforcement official involved in the Weaver case has been convicted for his actions, not even the sharpshooter who murdered Randy Weaver’s wife as she held their baby. Similarly, despite the jury’s "not guilty" of manslaughter verdict for the Waco survivors, Judge Walter Smith saw fit to give those found guilty of lesser charges lengthy jail sentences. His conduct during the trial was so prejudicial that formal complaints of judicial misconduct were filed. One might object to these examples as being oddities or exceptions. After all, these incidents seem like isolated aberrations—never mind that for each story that gets widespread attention, many more get only local media coverage, if that. Let’s shift focus, then, to an area that applies to all individuals living in the United States: the law. Minimum Sentencing Laws The current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are an excellent place to begin. These laws equalize almost all illegal drug activity, in that the same harsh penalties apply. The result is that a low-level participant, or even a one-time user, can get the same sentence for a given action as a drug kingpin. In an interview for the PBS program "Snitch", Eric Sterling, one of the people responsible for drafting those laws, revealed part of the process by which these drug laws came into being: "…these mandatories came in the last couple days before the Congressional recess … No hearings, no consideration by the federal judges, no input from the Bureau of Prisons. Even the DEA didn't testify. The whole thing is kind of cobbled together with chewing gum and baling wire. Numbers are picked out of air. And we see what these consequences are of that kind of legislating. ... Ten-year mandatory minimum, routine sentences are 15, 20, 30 years, without parole. ... Then you have conspiracy, and suddenly ... you have people facing 50 years, people facing either life in virtual terms or as a real sentence." Sterling made it clear that the intent of those who worked on the laws was for the harsh penalties to be used only against those at the top of the drug business—the "kingpins", yet that isn’t what’s happening. He speculated that laziness plays a role—why go after high level individuals and risk being killed, when it’s easy to get a "mule" or a courier? Those cases also have a high success rate, giving ambitious law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys a good record. In their zeal to appear tough on drugs, the framers of the mandatory minimum laws loosened the criteria for evidence. Sterling again: "There don't have to be drugs. … All there have to be are witnesses who say, ‘I saw the drugs,’ or, ‘He said there were drugs.’ That's what you need." One outcome of a witness’ testimony being instrumental to these cases is that many individuals charged with a drug crime will say almost anything in order to get a reduced sentence or the charges dropped. Mandatory sentencing laws are also harsh on conspiracy. Sterling explains that the intent was to close a loophole, but this brought disastrous effects: "…conspiracy as applied to these mandatories was completely by oversight and by accident. It was submitted as part of a simple technical corrections amendment. …No one envisioned that by applying [the statute] to anyone in a conspiracy, no matter how low they were in the conspiratorial chain, that they would get the maximum that could be imposed for the kingpin. …It was a total oversight." In his concluding comments, Sterling makes my point: "If we look at the way in which so much of our society functions today, it looks like the kind of highly regimented Soviet system that we were repulsed by in the early 1950s. Informants in the work place. Fear of having conversations with people. Fear of our children informing against us. Not knowing what the charges might be. Offenses for which bail is no longer available. ..." National ID The National ID (NID) is another chilling law. Under the guises of reducing the number of illegal aliens working in this country, and tracking down "deadbeat dads", the federal government is moving forward with plans to make each person’s driver’s license conform to national standards, with a unique identifying number (one’s Social Security Number). Without the NID an individual will not be able to do any of the following: get a job (or even change jobs within the same company); cash a check at a bank, or open a new bank account; apply for Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare; obtain or renew a passport; buy a firearm; fly on a commercial airline; or get medical treatment. Other plans for the NID are to include biometric data and financial, medical, and legal records on a magnetic strip. As if this branding isn’t enough, another piece of this legislation calls for birth certificates to be nationally standardized. Between these two acts, virtually every US citizen will be traceable through these documents. The laws enabling the NID have already been passed, and several states have changed their driver’s license requirements to comply with them. They require every person to have a Social Security Number—no exceptions for religious or other objections—and require the NID of every citizen wishing to conduct routine business in the United States. Instead of the request, "Papers, please", U.S. citizens will hear "NID, please". Just as in the Soviet Union, individuals without proper documentation will become second-class citizens, trying to eke out an existence in the shadow of the ever-vigilant government. Those who choose not to get a NID will face penalties in addition to the daily inconvenience they’ll experience; individuals who cooperate with non-branded citizens will face harsh penalties. Opposition to the NID has been increasing as word of its implications spreads, but it might be a case of "too little, too late". Know Your Customer A final example is an FDIC proposal of which the Soviet bosses would have been proud. Called "Know Your Customer", this proposal calls for banks to create a profile of each customer’s banking habits—all under pretense of trying to identify and reduce crime. If an individual deviates from that profile, the bank is required to notify federal authorities so they can investigate. Under this proposal, if you get a Christmas bonus or sell a vehicle and place the funds in your bank account, you can expect to hear from the FBI, IRS, and/or DEA, and it will be incumbent upon you to prove your innocence. If you don’t do so to the investigating official’s satisfaction, under existing asset forfeiture laws the money can be seized. Potential customers will be screened, and if they seem likely to engage in illegal activity, the bank can refuse to do business with them. One reason for requiring such snooping, according to the proposal, is to make it difficult for potential bank customers to avoid scrutiny. "… [B]anks can more easily collect the necessary information because customers cannot turn readily to another financial institution free of such requirements," it states, making it clear that credit unions and other financial institutions will have similar spying requirements. If this proposal is accepted, it means that financial institutions will become informants for Big Brother, with the individual considered guilty of some imagined crime unless and until s/he can demonstrate innocence. It frightens me that many people, even among those of us who love freedom, fail to see the ominous parallels between the United States today and the old Soviet Union. Here in the U.S. we don’t have the Lubyanka or the black marias—but do we need such obvious symbols to see the similarities? Janet Reno and her accomplices come close enough to Joseph Stalin for me, thank you. What can those of us who see the islands of this new archipelago do? Keep trying to educate others. The jackbooted thugs have overstepped their bounds, and continue to push in their quest for total control. At some point this will become obvious, even to those who try to resist seeing it. When that day comes, the more people who are aware of government’s abuses, and who are willing to resist the would-be tyrants, the better. In the meantime, navigate carefully. You don’t want to find yourself run aground on an island of this archipelago. References Solzhenitsyn, A. (1973). The Gulag Archipelago: An Experiment in Literary Investigation. Translated by Thomas P. Whitney, published by Harper & Row. Richard Jewell Information Peter McWilliams Information: •"A New Low in the War on Some Drugs", •Peter McWilliams’ web site. Mandatory Minimum Laws Information: Interview transcript of Eric Sterling from PBS "Frontline" program Snitch. NID Information: •Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996". •"Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996". •Grassroots Granny’s web site. FDIC Proposal Information: "Big Brother Banks?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunni Maravillosa is a psychology professor, a writer, and the web mistress for the Liberty Round Table. -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 4, Jan. 25, 1999 ----- Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved Disclaimer The Laissez Faire City Times is a private newspaper. Although it is published by a corporation domiciled within the sovereign domain of Laissez Faire City, it is not an "official organ" of the city or its founding trust. Just as the New York Times is unaffiliated with the city of New York, the City Times is only one of what may be several news publications located in, or domiciled at, Laissez Faire City proper. For information about LFC, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
