Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State

[Guest guest]

A

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:13:03 -0500

Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State

 

 

 

Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State

By Allan Uthman

June 16, 2006

http://www.alternet.org/story/36553/

 

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 " 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. " 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 f******g 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.