Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?
Reject Police State!
Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
U.S. House of Representatives, June 27, 2002
Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree.
Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress
ought to do about them.
Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with
political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11
tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are
never considered.
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our
post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in
our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious
danger to our security.
For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this
floor:
Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer
separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to
subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater
danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not
submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward
America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since
this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a
powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and
unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in
time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign
interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead
is a threat to our liberties.
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor
in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have
been borne out.
I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We
should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make
our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties
at home.
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here
at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come
up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one
place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world,
with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our
efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different
countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we
can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we
are losing.
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the
terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big
one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a
major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred
toward America from the Muslim world.
But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police
state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in
the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and
summary executions with a police state, something obviously not
present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of
Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a
different opinion.
The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most
militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying
disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by
levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in
the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long
periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on
commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political
dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved
without storm troopers on our street corners.
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience,
especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a
free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-
lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a
declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that
once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be
reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over,
the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war,
without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning
to normalcy can prove illusory.
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared,
while at the same time responding to public outcries for more
economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies,
is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are
we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's
any danger that we're moving in that direction.
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic
process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of
individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more
likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a
military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost
in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great
fear – from whatever source – the tendency to demand economic and
physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves
irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and
liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds
that for liberty.
Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical
security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to
the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing
the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes
very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering.
Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent
at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic
deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.
But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police
state, where are we and where are we going?
Let me make a few observations:
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we
do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police
state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military
soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles
checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are
totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse
yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our
safety.
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who
have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor
us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits,
on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every
government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open
society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain – anything
goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the
hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks,
What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it
eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear.
The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for
reasons other than safety – including political reasons. Like gun
control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than
the law-breakers.
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities.
The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and
for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of
monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal
others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy
has been compounded by the technology now available to those in
government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of
others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before
9/11.
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state.
Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as
the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the
federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways
and we are moving inexorably in that direction.
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the
proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving
guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages,
politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a
house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds,
and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our
federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely
fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely
consequences.
Because government pays for much of our health care, it's
conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm
one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are
to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down.
This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles
and bikes.
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special
belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed
limits – or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and
he will be toting a gun for sure.
The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government,
because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being
returned to their state – dollars that should have never been sent
to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a
powerful federal government.
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the
line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of
regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the
guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't
fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next
undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce
this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by
the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the
servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the
dictates of the IRS – especially the employers of the country, who
serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and
information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most
Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of
celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process
works.
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious.
Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA,
etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged
accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of
course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay
the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it
firmly establishes just who is in charge.
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or
break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even
inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved
in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to
prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the
United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and
fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic
crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic
progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from
our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found
guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge
fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under
today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be
easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even
with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-
controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious
problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the
control of speech through politically correct legislation.
Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings,
demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement
toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims
belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought
police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative
rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a
dangerous trend.
All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without
warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and
possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of
information on all Americans.
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the
National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the
government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of
course, is done with vague and useless promises that this
information will always remain confidential – just like all the FBI
information in the past!
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in
the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information
accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has
given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our
transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation
of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now
becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to
the 4th amendment?
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated
by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are
more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have
been deluded into believing all this government supervision is
necessary and helpful – and besides they are living quite
comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different
once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force,
and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government
regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change
dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be
difficult to reverse.
What government gives with one hand – as it attempts to provide
safety and security – it must, at the same time, take away with two
others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the
results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot
less than promised, it may be too late.
I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of
Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be
made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you
this is a reasonable request.
The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it.
We must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian
citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear
weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there's a
difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the
Islamic radicals. And believe me, we're not the target because
we're "free and prosperous".
The argument made for more government controls here at home and
expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like
this: "If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property
and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have
life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance,
then we'll talk about freedom.
It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a
voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would
lay off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense. We're looking for a
Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help
our area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that
argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be
motivating us here in the Congress.
That's not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security.
Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still
fail to provide the safety we all want.
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most
members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated
to decide in which direction we are going. If we're moving toward a
system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my
concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored.
Yet, if, by chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control
than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we
should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current
policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that
allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for
future generations.
That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are
crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America
great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing
with this dilemma – the new Department of Homeland Security – and we
must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should
anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility
of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there
are reservations about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm
and warn the people of what is to come.
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs
is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of
our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes
time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and
tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear
platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.
Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to
crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn
the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper
course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as
ours. If not, we're not a free society.
Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of
deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use
any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.
But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are
yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line
and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the
administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture,
military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to
wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are
the minimum required to save our country from the threat of
terrorism.
Who's winning this war anyway?
To get popular support for these serious violations of our
traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of
fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility
of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any
substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive
fear being generated by government officials.
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement,
our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time
at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now –
discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information
here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We
don't need these agents competing overseas and confusing the
intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.
I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred
al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their
demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda
themselves could never do to us by force.
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more
intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to
pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are
overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the
so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small
number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad
policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear.
They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why
us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us
because: "We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the
purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred
that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values
and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their
cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the
perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.
The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:
-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial
reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.
-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most
confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of
pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign
military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we
might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the
purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S.
territory.
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year
war going on in the Middle East.
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we
believe only the official line from the administration and proceed
to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights,
we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the
numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have
grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to
making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war"
could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets
can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.
Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are
actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less
prosperous" – those conditions that are supposed to have prompted
the attacks. I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real
cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
U.S. House of Representatives, June 27, 2002
Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree.
Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress
ought to do about them.
Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with
political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11
tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are
never considered.
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our
post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in
our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious
danger to our security.
For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this
floor:
Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer
separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to
subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater
danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not
submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward
America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since
this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a
powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and
unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in
time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign
interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead
is a threat to our liberties.
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor
in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have
been borne out.
I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We
should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make
our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties
at home.
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here
at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come
up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one
place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world,
with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our
efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different
countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we
can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we
are losing.
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the
terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big
one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a
major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred
toward America from the Muslim world.
But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police
state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in
the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and
summary executions with a police state, something obviously not
present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of
Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a
different opinion.
The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most
militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying
disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by
levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in
the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long
periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on
commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political
dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved
without storm troopers on our street corners.
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience,
especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a
free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-
lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a
declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that
once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be
reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over,
the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war,
without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning
to normalcy can prove illusory.
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared,
while at the same time responding to public outcries for more
economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies,
is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are
we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's
any danger that we're moving in that direction.
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic
process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of
individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more
likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a
military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost
in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great
fear – from whatever source – the tendency to demand economic and
physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves
irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and
liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds
that for liberty.
Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical
security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to
the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing
the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes
very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering.
Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent
at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic
deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.
But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police
state, where are we and where are we going?
Let me make a few observations:
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we
do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police
state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military
soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles
checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are
totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse
yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our
safety.
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who
have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor
us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits,
on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every
government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open
society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain – anything
goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the
hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks,
What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it
eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear.
The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for
reasons other than safety – including political reasons. Like gun
control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than
the law-breakers.
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities.
The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and
for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of
monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal
others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy
has been compounded by the technology now available to those in
government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of
others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before
9/11.
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state.
Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as
the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the
federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways
and we are moving inexorably in that direction.
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the
proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving
guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages,
politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a
house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds,
and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our
federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely
fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely
consequences.
Because government pays for much of our health care, it's
conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm
one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are
to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down.
This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles
and bikes.
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special
belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed
limits – or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and
he will be toting a gun for sure.
The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government,
because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being
returned to their state – dollars that should have never been sent
to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a
powerful federal government.
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the
line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of
regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the
guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't
fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next
undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce
this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by
the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the
servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the
dictates of the IRS – especially the employers of the country, who
serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and
information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most
Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of
celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process
works.
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious.
Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA,
etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged
accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of
course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay
the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it
firmly establishes just who is in charge.
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or
break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even
inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved
in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to
prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the
United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and
fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic
crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic
progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from
our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found
guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge
fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under
today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be
easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even
with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-
controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious
problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the
control of speech through politically correct legislation.
Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings,
demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement
toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims
belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought
police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative
rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a
dangerous trend.
All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without
warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and
possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of
information on all Americans.
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the
National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the
government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of
course, is done with vague and useless promises that this
information will always remain confidential – just like all the FBI
information in the past!
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in
the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information
accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has
given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our
transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation
of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now
becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to
the 4th amendment?
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated
by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are
more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have
been deluded into believing all this government supervision is
necessary and helpful – and besides they are living quite
comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different
once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force,
and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government
regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change
dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be
difficult to reverse.
What government gives with one hand – as it attempts to provide
safety and security – it must, at the same time, take away with two
others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the
results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot
less than promised, it may be too late.
I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of
Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be
made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you
this is a reasonable request.
The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it.
We must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian
citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear
weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there's a
difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the
Islamic radicals. And believe me, we're not the target because
we're "free and prosperous".
The argument made for more government controls here at home and
expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like
this: "If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property
and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have
life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance,
then we'll talk about freedom.
It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a
voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would
lay off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense. We're looking for a
Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help
our area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that
argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be
motivating us here in the Congress.
That's not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security.
Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still
fail to provide the safety we all want.
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most
members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated
to decide in which direction we are going. If we're moving toward a
system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my
concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored.
Yet, if, by chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control
than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we
should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current
policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that
allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for
future generations.
That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are
crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America
great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing
with this dilemma – the new Department of Homeland Security – and we
must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should
anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility
of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there
are reservations about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm
and warn the people of what is to come.
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs
is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of
our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes
time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and
tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear
platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.
Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to
crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn
the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper
course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as
ours. If not, we're not a free society.
Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of
deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use
any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.
But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are
yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line
and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the
administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture,
military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to
wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are
the minimum required to save our country from the threat of
terrorism.
Who's winning this war anyway?
To get popular support for these serious violations of our
traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of
fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility
of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any
substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive
fear being generated by government officials.
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement,
our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time
at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now –
discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information
here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We
don't need these agents competing overseas and confusing the
intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.
I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred
al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their
demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda
themselves could never do to us by force.
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more
intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to
pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are
overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the
so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small
number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad
policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear.
They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why
us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us
because: "We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the
purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred
that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values
and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their
cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the
perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.
The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:
-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial
reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.
-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most
confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of
pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign
military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we
might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the
purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S.
territory.
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year
war going on in the Middle East.
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we
believe only the official line from the administration and proceed
to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights,
we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the
numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have
grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to
making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war"
could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets
can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.
Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are
actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less
prosperous" – those conditions that are supposed to have prompted
the attacks. I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real
cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
given us.
The question that one day must be answered is this:
What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had
involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion.
Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events
of 9/11? If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if
we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements
made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they
speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy
from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an
American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions,
save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.
This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but
rather is an argument I've made for decades, claiming that meddling
in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually
reduces our ability to defend ourselves.
This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the
attacks and dealing with them accordingly – something that we seem
to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq
than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that
instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against
countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we
should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.
I'm sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will
prove elusive. Financial interests of our international
corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-
industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our
policies.
Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away
from foreign militarism – like bringing our troops home – would now
be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won't happen.
This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be
capitulating is legitimate.
Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial
only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn't we demand the courage and
wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the
political shortcomings?
President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and
from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat
with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely
defused by Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey
on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for
the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This
concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that
taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one
does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically – that's
what diplomats are supposed to do.
Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide
imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia
or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today's
conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests
want. It's now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No
questions are asked by the media or the politicians – only cheers.
Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of
the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be
questioned!
A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now
face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because
the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist
attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or
Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but
the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.
There's no purpose in targeting us unless there's a political
agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda
exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending
something to be true that is not is dangerous.
It's a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40
billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11
was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these
mistakes. That's good, unless, instead of changing the role for the
CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending
more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing
without improving their efficiency or changing their goals.
Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.
One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was
that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left
to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they
failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide
security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most
likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful
day.
But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the
right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security
screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are
hijacked.
Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless
hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors,
mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while
doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern
countries who are on designated watch lists.
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the
warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to
make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we
know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let's go get him instead.
Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it
instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how
private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could
apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.
If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the
politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those
individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes,
all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a
huge new federal department – the Department of Homeland Security.
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-
government approach, and if we don't jolly well like it, we will be
tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out
for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the
next attack. If it's not a real attack, then it's a theoretical one;
one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential
terrorist.
Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more
secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed
plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people
to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes
being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our
way of life.
There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and
freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security.
Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many
are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated
fears.
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign
government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this
power the President is assuming, our President, through executive
order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses,
for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic
usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the
legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done
through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now
being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free
society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been
given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take
it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of
our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is
overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality,
constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein
will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives
to suicide terrorist attacks against us.
Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent
assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the
sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us,
not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that
someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against
us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the
Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint,
our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.
Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of
any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as
long as we're king of the hill, but one must assume every other
nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification
for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike
against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many
other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make
the world much less safe.
This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is
impossible to do, especially when we're dealing with a subjective
interpretation of plans buried in someone's head. To those who
suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam
Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: "Prove to me that Saddam
Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the
United States." Since no one can prove this, the warmongers
shout: "Let's march on Baghdad."
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that
providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls
on Congress' shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars
that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to
be the more prudent thing to do.
Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage
of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where
Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's
legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable
threats, at any cost – dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:
-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the
establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of
terrorism.
– The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government's
surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens
through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans
to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had
been sought after for years.
-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly
after 9/11.
– The federalization of all airline security employees.
-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights
of those accused – rights established as far back in history as 1215.
– Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even
when a crime has not been committed – a serious precedent that one
day may well be abused.
– Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political
activity.
– Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious
diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for
vaccinations.
Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed
through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy,
including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.
Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through
the Congress.
Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now
being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and
expand.
There's no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending,
both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the
size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit
is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector
drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to
the loss of confidence needed for growth.
Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive
expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of
establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland
Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all
these efforts productive and worthwhile.
There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge
funding can solve our nation's problems. The likelihood is that the
unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our
freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.
Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not
mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The
truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we
face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of
government at the expense of liberty.
As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing
crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to
tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on
intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments,
by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as
fact.
I'm sure that our intelligence agencies had the information
available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf
wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic
principle is wrong. City policeman can't and should not be expected
to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into
the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.
But that's exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It's a
wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The
policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still
rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our
citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any
police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of
isolation doesn't entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a
shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right
denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.
The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To
prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need
cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use,
wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras,
not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet,
and travels would need to be constantly monitored – just to make
sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.
This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than
allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to
assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume
responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit.
I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far
superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been
made much worse in the past nine months.
This method of providing security emphasizes private-property
ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property.
But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the
administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that
the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance
protection mean that we're just digging a bigger hole for ourselves –
ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something
it's not capable of doing.
Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates
more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that
seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's efforts so
far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I'm convinced that the
newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to
make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less
free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security
may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the
people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let's
pray that this concern will never materialize.
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our
concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more
docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that
we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been
abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our
liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear
persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely
usher in a system of government that will please only those who
enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.
Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America
a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast
approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic
protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being
undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided
ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty,
failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and
we either need advance permission for everything we do or are
penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be
declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens
will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic
and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look
at what's coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative
of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for
suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an
independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common
practice rather than a rare incident.
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress
doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So
forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise
that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed.
Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right
thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war
propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves
to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free
society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through
force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and
religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police
the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our
responsibility to manage a world American empire.
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free
markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing
private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these
rules – whether foreign or domestic.
In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect
liberty – the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand
experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the
police state.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
http://www.house.gov/paul/
Augustus, who reigned for roughly forty years, was arguably Rome's best advocate. Such a preponderance of Roman citizens supported him that he lived in relative safety and popularity until his death, ruling not from a palace fortress, but instead, from a small apartment off of Palatine Hill. His choice to vest all power in the seal (rather than the senate or smaller councils in cities) gifted him power to make substantial and long-range changes. However, that same choice meant that his sucessors (each and all of them) would inherit that same, distilled, unrestrained power. His choice in this regard undid the tremendous goods he'd done.
If Presidential Directives were merely all and merely this (merely the power to make policy changes within federal government arms), that would be sufficient. Clinton utilized this power (the power to issue personally drafted dicta) to the extreme, and this, even though damaging, was something any subsequent "ruler" could repair. The changes most recently instituted by Congress, however (on the Bush regime's behalf and at its insistence) are not easily repaired.
Suppose (by temporarily engaging in childlike suspension of disbelief) that Bush's regime instituted the aforesaid changes for genuine, good intentions (not likely, but remotely possible). Even given this (and if this were so, which it isn't), why would such learned men undertake such actions? The Framers specifically guarded against such things, no doubt pondering Augustus [and others similarly situated] as they did so. Observation of likely results (by entertaining the eleven remaining Caesars) should have signaled the dangers therein.
But they didn't make any such observations (and instead, discarded Seutonius for Machiavelli). What we're left with, therefore, is an exceedinly dangerous environment. The PATRIOT Act, for example, is neither a holistic or incorporative bill, but instead, reaches into and alters countless other, pre-existing statutes. Its tree-like structure guarantees that even a dozen ACLUs couldn't reverse or even reduce its affects across a dozen areas of constitutional law (not even given a decade to do so).
Finally, the reversal of Church Committee-hearing inspired controls completes the cycle (and these guarantee that subsequent administrations will have not merely these advantages, but many others, and through the same, will further weaken any constitutional protections we once enjoyed). Hence, we are doomed to live in a police state, and making that observation is now more trouble (and will eat more time) than it's worth. Libertarian and civil rights advocates are already running on all pistons to hold any further malfeasances of this sort. In the interim, citizens would do well to take refuge in technology, deploying the necessary means to proof themselves against what technologies the police state will soon use to attack, disrupt, and disable their human networks.
Short title: what's done is done. Knowing that, suit up, because the police state is here and will soon come for its enemies and detractors. For, it matters little whether the regime's actions are "unconstitutional." The costs and time necessary to undo anything it does (against you or yours) are considerable, and reach well beyond the means of average citizens. Thus, to survive the next decade (without the regime ruining your lives and livelihoods), take measures to ensure that you're never in so defensive a position that your futures and fortunes rely on lawyers, litigation, or criminal defense. Anyone who fails to do so (and ends up in that defensive position) will seriously suffer.