Posts Tagged ‘Civil Liberties’

In the wake of September 11, 2001 as millions of Americans eyes were glued to our television sets watching as President Bush gave his State of the Union address, we all trusted in a government that we thought was infallible.  Carted before the American people as a means to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our liberties, Americans would soon learn that it did the exact opposite.  Members of Congress were not even able to read the full text before taking a vote.

Read the following two article and tell me what you think.

The Patriot Act Is at war with the Constitution

STATEMENT OF BRUCE FEINON BEHALF OF CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY

RE: THE USA PATRIOT ACT: DISPELLING THE MYTHS

BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

MAY 11, 2011


I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty about the USA Patriot Act. Provoked largely by the gruesome abominations of 9/11, the legislation was born of fear and uncertainty from abroad. Fear, however, is the fount of tyranny. James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned centuries ago in opposing the tyrannical Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.” At the constitutional convention of 1787, Madison similarly recognized the inclination of government to wave a banner of foreign danger to excuse the destaruction of domestic liberties: “The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

The 342-page USA Patriot Act passed without inquiry into whether arming the government with muscular investigatory tools justified the corresponding intrusions on the right to be left alone — the right most valued by civilized people. The Patriot Act was portrayed as a necessary defense against foreign agents and international terrorists. Citizen liberties were relegated to extras in a Cecil B. De Mille cinematic extravaganza

Despite the good intentions of its architects, the Patriot Act betrays bedrock constitutional principles. The individual is the center of the Constitution’s universe. Aggrandizing government is the center of the Patriot Act. The Constitution salutes freedom and citizen sovereignty over absolute safety and citizen vassalage. The Patriot Act turns that hierarchy on its head. Where experience and facts are inconclusive as regards the need for government authority, the Constitution’s default position is liberty. Under the Patriot Act, if a threat passes a microscopic threshold of danger, a Big Brother government is exalted, a descendant of the 1% doctrine. The authorization of “lone wolf”surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is exemplary. It has never been employed, yet it is defended as a cornerstone of the nation’s defense against a second edition of 9/11.

The Alien Act of 1798 was similar. It answered political or popular fears of French immigrants. The President was empowered to deport unilaterally any immigrant thought “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” During its two-year life, the President never once invoked the Act’s deportation authority. Congress sensibly declined to renew it.

The makers of the Constitution venerated man’s spiritual nature, his moods, and his intellect, to borrow from Justice Louis D. Brandeis. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their attitudes, their seclusions, and their challenges to conventional wisdom. They crowned citizens with the right to be left free from government encroachments, the hallmark of every civilized society. To protect that right, Justice Brandeis sermonized, “[E]very unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The Patriot Act, nevertheless, shrivels the right to be left alone from Government snooping and surveillance. It sneers at Benjamin Franklin’s admonition: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Patriot Act champions boast that only a handful of judicial rulings have cast a cloud over its provisions, for instance, gag orders on National Security Letter recipients. But even the U.S. Supreme Court stumbles. In Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Court held conversations were outside the ambit of the Fourth Amendment because its text protected only “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” In Katz v. United States (1967), thirty-nine years later, the Court overruled Olmstead and held the Amendment protected “reasonable expectations of privacy.” As Saint Paul preached, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3: 6. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of race-based concentration camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. Congress repudiated the Court’s odious decisions in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

No federal court voided the Sedition Act of 1798, despite its flagrant trespass on free speech. Over 150 years later in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court denounced the Act as unconstitutional. Many Patriot Act provisions hinge on the decision of the High Court in U.S. v. Miller (1976), that bank records or other information “voluntarily”shared with third parties are outside a suspect’s zone of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Miller precedent seems increasingly anachronistic in the Age of the Internet in which a virtual diary of individual activities is in the hands of third party Internet Service Providers.

Moreover, extra-constitutional reasons explain the dearth of court challenges. The lion’s share of information sought under the Patriot Act is aimed at third parties, not the target of surveillance or investigation. The former have little or no incentive to incur the legal costs and public opprobrium inherent in fighting the government. In addition, many recipients of Patriot Act demands, like telecommunications companies or banks, are motivated to cultivate government goodwill to preserve contracts or friendly regulatory relations. The government has also sought to stigmatize any opponent of the USA Patriot Act as semi-traitorous or un-American through its title or otherwise. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft decried its critics as “aiding and abetting terrorists.” But in the true Republic created by our Founding Fathers, the people censure the government; the government does not censure the people. Finally, the vast majority of victims of illegal or unconstitutional surveillance under FISA are never informed of the spying. They do not know the government has compiled a dossier against them.

In light of the hostility toward Patriot Act dissenters generated by the Government and general concealment of violations, the diminutive number of federal court cases is readily understandable. Why bring a lawsuit and risk losing your neighbor, your friends, your job, and your public standing? It might equally be said in defense of Jim Crow that “separate but equal”must have been benign because so few blacks initiated lawsuits seeking its reversal (at the risk of their homes, families, ostracisms, and lives).

At least one Member of Congress has insinuated that a constitutional violation is harmless as long as the Government conceals the violation from the victim, for example, an unconstitutionally seized and retained email or phone call. That assertion seems first cousin to the nonsense that government assassinations are innocuous if the victims are never acknowledged and their bodies are never found.

Every Founding Father — every Member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 — would have been appalled at the Patriot Act. They were electrified by patriot James Otis’ denunciation in 1761 of villainous Writs of Assistance — general search warrants which empowered petty officers to invade privacy and liberty on bare suspicion without oath. Otis elaborated: “It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law that ever was found in an English law book…Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, and murder any one within the realm.” Patriot John Adams was awed, and remarked, “[T]hen and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.”

Click here to read the full text.

Let the Patriot Act Expire

Congress will soon be considering renewal of major portions of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is generally promoted as the principal legislative tool being used to fight international terrorism, but it played no role whatsoever in the recent killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Act is, in reality, a devastating and poorly conceived bit of legislation originally approved just after 9/11. It will soon be up for an extension in the US Senate prior to the expiration of some key elements on May 27th. President Barack Obama, who criticized it while he was a candidate but apparently has had a change of heart since that time, favors its renewal and his Attorney General Eric Holder recently endorsed its renewal. Most members of Congress, few of whom have ever read the entire act, want it renewed. The mainstream media likes the Patriot Act, one suspects, because it is difficult to fault legislation that has “Patriot” as part of its name.

There is growing suspicion, even among congressmen, that the Patriot Act just might be too damaging to civil liberties at a time when the terrorism threat appears to be receding. Senator Rand Paul led the charge in the Senate back in February that resulted in a temporary 90 day continuation of the provisions of the act that will expire this month. The Act will again be up for Senatorial approval but, unfortunately, the planned one week long open debate in front of the full Senate and under the scrutiny of the media might well be canceled due to lack of interest by Republicans and Democrats alike. It would have been the first time that has happened since 2001, when the Act first became law.

Broadly speaking, the Patriot Act was designed to make it easier for law enforcement to investigate US citizens and permanent residents by easing legal restraints on records and activities that were hitherto considered private or required a judge’s order to access. The Act has enjoyed bipartisan support since 2001.

Title 2 of the Patriot Act, makes it possible to investigate any foreign suspect as part of a law enforcement effort to obtain foreign intelligence information even if there was no evidence that a crime had been committed. The difference is critical as the police previously had to have actual evidence of a crime while the new procedure permitted investigation of just about anyone who could plausibly be linked to a foreign suspect to obtain information, allowing law enforcement to conduct wide ranging fishing expeditions. The Act also lifted the old requirement that law enforcement demonstrate that the target of an approved investigation was a foreign national and a possible agent of a foreign government. Anyone linked to the inquiry, even a US citizen, could become a person of interest. This was referred to as a “lone wolf” provision and it is one of the areas of the Patriot Act that is up for renewal.

Title 2 also permitted any district court in the United States to issue surveillance orders and search warrants in connection with proposed terrorist investigations and the Act specifically included electronic communications and voicemail records as subject to the warrants. Using the warrants, the FBI is able to access from the internet service provider all records on a user, to include name, address, telephone billing records, session details, and payment information to include bank and credit card records. This feature of the Act is also up for renewal this month.

The third feature of the Act that is up for extension at the end of May is roving wiretaps, permitting law enforcement to obtain warrants that allow them to switch from one communications medium to another if they believe that the target is changing his method of communication to make monitoring him more difficult. This means that the FBI is empowered to tap multiple phones or computer lines simultaneously based on one blanket warrant. Previously law enforcement had to show cause for the tap and it was limited to the telephone or computer line specified in the request. Under Title 2 the FBI was also permitted to obtain whatever tangible public records are available to assist in an investigation. This was the so-called library clause, where library borrowing records could be accessed by the police.

Click here for full text.

Advertisements

Nationwide revolt against naked body scanners and invasive groping carried out by predatory thugs goes viral

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 23, 2011

A Seattle cafe has sensationally banned TSA workers from entering its business premises, refusing service as a consequence of the odious reputation the agency has required in the aftermath of a nationwide revolt against invasive pat down procedures and naked body scanners.

As a symbolic protest against “enhanced pat down procedures” that involve TSA agents literally touching the genitalia of passengers, including young children, the boss of a cafe near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has blacklisted TSA workers in retribution for their role in eviscerating the Fourth Amendment and assaulting all notions of decency.

“We have posted signs on our doors basically saying that they aren’t allowed to come into our business,” cafe worker KC McLawson told Christopher Elliott. “We have the right to refuse service to anyone.”

My boss flies quite a bit and he has an amazing ability to remember faces. If he sees a TSA agent come in we turn our backs and completely ignore them, and tell them to leave.

Their kind aren’t welcomed in our establishment.

A large majority of our customers — over 90 percent — agree with our stance and stand by our decision.

We even have the police on our side and they have helped us escort TSA agents out of our cafe. Until TSA agents start treating us with the respect and dignity that we deserve, then things will change for them in the private sector.

As we have documented, TSA workers have proven themselves time and time again to be prone to predatory criminal behavior, the exact opposite psychological profile that is suitable for people involved with airport security. Perhaps this is why they are almost universally loathed by the Americans people and why many airports are trying to turf out the agency entirely and replace TSA workers with private screeners.

Over the past few years, TSA agents have been caught in numerous acts of criminality and abuse of their positions, including;

– Stealing thousands of dollars of cash and other valuables from airport travelers
– Repeated assault of passengers and their own TSA colleagues
– Drug abuse while on the job leading to maniacal bouts of screaming and insane power trips
– Stealing laptops and other expensive electrical items
– Sabotaging sensitive screening databases
– Offensive jokes about planting drugs on travelers
– Hundreds of cases of forcefully groping travelers, exposing breasts, removing sanitary towels from vaginas, and brazenly targeting attractive women for enhanced screening and sexual abuse
– Abducting and sexually assaulting women
– Multiple sex crimes targeting underage minors
– Downloading thousands of child porn images
– Abusing naked body scanners to sexually harass female colleagues and taunt male colleagues about the size of their penis

Given the nature of that list, and it’s barely scratching the surface, it’s hardly surprising that businesses across America are starting to blacklist TSA agents and refuse them service.

On the flip side, the list also explains why prank callers who contact the TSA about job opportunities while pretending to be sexual perverts, porn addicts and pedophiles are also treated seriously by TSA staffers.

TSA workers have earned a reputation not too far removed from Nazi troops who occupied Europe during world war two, many of whom were treated similarly in that some businesses refused to serve them even under threat of arrest.

The motivations of someone who wants to apply for a job that involves them sexually molesting the bodies of young children and ogling naked images of people’s genitalia tells you everything you need to know about the psychological disposition of any TSA worker, before they’ve even got the job.

Legislation aimed at making the misuse of body scanners a federal crime punishable by a $100,000 fine and a year in jail is a start, but the only real solution that will end the tyranny of the TSA is to disband the agency entirely and confine it to the scrap heap of post-9/11 paranoia.

Call me old fashioned, but I like my privacy, and the privacy of every American.  I don’t care if the laptops were stolen; that does not give a school the right to eavesdrop and take 56,000 pictures of people in their potentially most vulnerable moments.

The FBI says they won’t prosecute.  Of course they wouldn’t.  Why would they want to prosecute for something they do all the time?

The Raw Story

The federal prosecutor investigating the case of a Pennsylvania school district that spied on its students via remote-controlled laptop cameras says the school district won’t face criminal charges in the case.

US Attorney Zane David Memenger said in a statement that there is no evidence the Lower Merion School District, in suburban Philadelphia, had any criminal intent when it remotely activated cameras on laptops issued to students.

“For the government to prosecute a criminal case, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged acted with criminal intent,” Memeger said, as quoted at Information Week. “We have not found evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent.”

The issue came to light in February, when the parents of Harriton High School student Blake Robbins filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the school district invaded Robbins’ privacy by filming him in his home through his school-issued laptop. It emerged later that the school district photographed Robbins 400 times in a two-week period, in various states of undress and even during his sleep.

Investigators found that the remote-controlled cameras took some 56,000 pictures of Lower Merion School District students over a two-year period, with the cameras sometimes left on for weeks at a time.

The school district claimed initially it used the remote-operated cameras to locate lost or stolen laptops. But the Robbins lawsuit alleges that the school district used the cameras for other purposes. In Robbins’ case, the 15-year-old student was confronted by a vice principal over what the school official thought was drug use. The vice principal saw a pill in Robbins’ bedroom, which the plaintiffs say was simply candy.

The FBI launched an investigation of the school district in February, but the US Attorney’s findings have effectively put an end to any criminal law issue in the matter.

The prosecutor’s conclusion “supports the findings of our internal investigation and follows … approval of new laptop policies by the school board,” Lower Merion School District Superintendent Christopher W. McGinley said, as quoted at PCMag. “This is all good news for the students and staff of Lower Merion School District as we prepare for the start of a new school year.”

The school district has adopted a new policy that sets guidelines for when the laptop cameras can be used by school officials, and requires parents to sign off on use of the cameras, or decline participating in the school’s program to issue laptops to students, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The lack of criminal charges doesn’t mean the school district is off the hook. The Robbins’ civil lawsuit is still before the courts, as is another lawsuit, this one launched last month by student Jilal Hasan.

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

Statement on H. Res. 1422

June 24, 2010

Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives recently considered H.RES. 1422, honoring the 140th anniversary of the Department of Justice. I voted against this resolution because of the Justice Department’s history of violating individual rights.

It is the Justice Department that leads the ongoing violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments in the name of the “war on drugs.” It is Justice Department agents who perform warrantless wiretap, and “sneak-and-peak” searches under the misnamed PATRIOT Act. It is the Justice Department that prosecutes American citizens for violating unconstitutional federal regulations even in cases where no reasonable person could have known their actions violated federal law.

Some like to pretend that the Justice Department’s assault on liberties is a modern phenomenon, or that abuses of liberties are only carried out by one political party. However, history shows that the unconstitutional usurpations of power and abuse of rights goes back at least almost a hundred years to the “Progressive” era and that Justice Departments of both parties have disregarded the Constitution and violated individual liberties.

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Justice Department imprisoned people who dared to speak out against the war. Following the war, the progressive assault on the First Amendment continued with the infamous “Palmer raids,” named for Wilson’s Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Just as President Wilson’s policies of foreign interventionism and domestic welfare served as a model for future presidents, Attorney General Palmer’s assaults on civil liberties served as a model for future attorney generals of both parties. Think of Robert Kennedy authorizing the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr, John Mitchell’s role in the abuses of civil liberties by Nixon Administration, Ed Meese’s assault on the First Amendment with his “pornography commission,” Janet Reno’s role in the murder of innocent men, women and children at Waco, and the steady erosion of our rights over the past decade. In addition, it is the attorney general and the Justice Department that defend and justify violations of constitutional liberties by the president and the other federal bureaucracies.

Many civil libertarians were hopeful the new administration would be more sympathetic to civil liberties than was the prior administration. But the current administration has disregarded campaign promises to restore respect for civil liberates and has continued, and in many cases expanded, the anti-freedom policies of its predecessors. For instance, the current administration is supporting renewal of the policies of warrantless wiretapping, and other PATRIOT Act provisions. The administration, despite promising to be more open and transparent, is also continuing to use the claim of “state secrets” to shield potentially embarrassing information from Americans. According to the New York Times, the current administration is even outdoing its predecessors in the prosecution of government whistleblowers. It is little wonder that the head of the American Civil Liberties Union recently said he is disgusted with the administration’s record on civil liberties.

Of course, Madam Speaker, Congress bears ultimate responsibility for the Justice Department’s actions, as it is Congress that passes the unconstitutional laws the Justice Department enforces. Congress also fails to perform effective oversight of the Justice Department. Instead of honoring the Justice Department, Congress should begin to repeal unconstitutional laws and start exercising congressional oversight of executive branch agencies that menace our freedoms.

Too often Americans undervalue their rights.  So much so, they believe that a giving up of their rights makes them safer, but it doesn’t.  It only opens the door to a totalitarian dictatorship that we are seeing shape up in this country, and it exposes Americans to the worst of police investigations.  For a great example read John Grisham’s The Innocent Man.

I was watching 48 hours Mystery one night and a woman was investigated, charged and convicted of murdering her mother.  Whats wrong with this?  The police and the D.A. went on the worst of evidence.  Not a shred of physical evidence pointed to the woman as the killer, and a cat was allowed to walk the crime scene with the ability to contaminate.

Our rights is what makes this nation of ours so unique.  Without those rights we are nothing more than a reflection of those we fight against.

New York (CNN) — Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins — holding that, after being informed of their rights, suspects must explicitly tell police that they want to stay silent to invoke their Miranda protections — indeed turns Miranda “upside down,” as one dissenting justice put it.

Its potential consequences are as predictable as night following day: Police will interrogate criminal suspects who do not explicitly invoke their rights — often, those will be suspects who are unsophisticated, poorly educated or mentally ill — for hours on end. This will lead, just as inevitably, to more coerced — and therefore unreliable — confessions. And this will result in wrongful incarceration and diminish our collective security. This is the very phenomenon that Miranda aimed to eliminate.

To be sure, the ruling is a setback for the protections designed to ensure an effective criminal justice system (Miranda requires police officers to inform suspects of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney).

But there is one silver lining in Berghuis’ cloud: The ruling demonstrates that the Supreme Court is not shy about curtailing Miranda protections, even without prodding from Congress. Hence the ruling should derail Congress’ recent calls to enact an unnecessary, likely overbroad and possibly unconstitutional statute further restricting Miranda’s requirements.

The issue arose when Attorney General Eric Holder, among others, called on lawmakers to step in and limit Miranda by expanding the “public safety exception.” That exception allows law enforcement officials to interrogate suspected terrorists for a limited time before advising them of their Miranda rights — if the officers are “reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.”

But this call for codifying has always been somewhat baffling, as it is so clearly not needed. Expanding of the public safety exception legislatively may score political points for lawmakers or government officials bent on appearing tough on terrorism, but such action would not improve the efficacy of our counterterrorism policy.

In fact, the public safety exception in its current form has proved extremely effective in allowing law enforcement the necessary flexibility in questioning terror suspects.

After two recent attempted terror attacks, both the “underwear bomber” suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and “Times Square bomber” suspect Faisal Shahzad were questioned under the public safety exception. They both reportedly provided interrogators with valuable intelligence during that time and continued to do so even after being advised of their rights.

As the attorney general himself observed, “the giving of Miranda warnings has not stopped these terror suspects from talking to us. They have continued to talk even though we have given them a Miranda warning.”

Legislation on the public safety exception is also risky. While courts consider the issues that come to them on a case-by-case basis, deciding what the law requires in the context of a particular set of circumstances, Congress must act in the abstract, imagining a variety of situations that might occur and attempting to draft a law able to address each of them. Thus any congressional attempt to define the scope of the public safety exception, especially in a political environment dominated by a sense that the next terrorist attempt might occur at any moment, is likely to overreach.

Moreover, we know from the 2000 case Dickerson v. United States, which struck down a law aimed at limiting the scope of Miranda, that the Supreme Court will draw the line on curtailing Miranda’s protections. Thus any statute passed now to expand or codify the exception runs the risk of judicial invalidation. The result would be that any convictions secured through confessions elicited under the invalidated law would be reversed.

Today’s decision, however, removes any doubt about whether Congress should take action. It should not. Without Congress ever introducing a bill or taking a single vote, the Supreme Court just expanded significantly law enforcement officials’ ability to interrogate at length all criminal suspects, terrorists or otherwise, even after they have been properly Mirandized. Until suspected terrorists unambiguously assert their desire to remain silent, government officials may continue to interrogate them for hours or even days, using any statement they make against them in subsequent prosecution.

Moreover, this decision sends a strong signal: While it might look with hostility on congressional attempts to rein in the scope of the Miranda rule, the Supreme Court itself is willing to interpret narrowly the protections that Miranda affords criminal defendants. And it is willing to reach relatively far to do so.

“The Reverend Al Sharpton attacked President Bush, saying he ruined the economy. For instance, Sharpton hasn’t been able to find a job in over 46 years.” —Craig Kilborn

 This is a story of a person close to me, I am going to call her Heather.  Anyway, Heather went to go pick up her little girl one day from  school.  Upon exiting the car a black woman came up to her screaming.  I imagine Heather’s first reaction was, What the hell is her problem? 

Apparently Heather had stolen this woman’s parking spot, and the reason: Heather is a racist.  At least that is what the black woman is saying.  Racist because she stole her parking spot?!  C’mon get a life!  Do some black people have that little to bitch about that they have to accuse someone of being a racist because they didn’t get the parking spot that they wanted? 

Now if you’re black and you like to play the race card because the white people are evil, take a step back, a little more, one more step, there you’re good.  White people fought for your freedom.  White people fought for your civil rights.  Granted it was a long time coming, but it wouldn’t have been possible without the help of whitey.  So discard that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X chip on your shoulder and realize this: if you like to use the race card, you are the racist ones, not us.

Heather writes: Some people are unreal! I pulling into the parking lot to pick Bri up and another car follows me in I pull into a parking spot get out of my car and a lady is screaming at me telling me that I am racist because I took the parking spot and didnt give it to her. Then she tells me slavery has been gone for a long time and white people need to learn that everything’s not ours.

“Enclosed is the information you requested pertaining to the Army’s policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations.  This information has not yet been published (it is currently at the printers), however, it has been funded, staffed, and does reflect current Army policy.

Bill Hefner, member of Congress 

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

If you live in Long Beach, California, you may think the city is under attack by terrorists today.

 
   
   
   
   

The Adler Realty Investment company in Long Beach has sent a notice to residents (see below) informing them that “response agencies,” including the U.S. Coast Guard, the local police and fire department along with the military will be conducting a training exercise in the city. “Port Protector 2010,” an attachment to the notice states, will consist of a training exercise in response to a “terrorist threat” including a “hostage scenario” and Hazmat training.

“A United States Coast Guard helicopter will be flying overhead as part of the training exercise,” the attachment continues. “Weapons will be brandished (NO GUNFIRE). Long Beach motor officers will be patroling outer permiter (sic) areas of exercise for safety and to keep non-exercise participants out of exercise area.”

The Long Beach exercise is another example of the engineered demise of Posse Comitatus and an usurpation of the right of the states to control their police, emergency services, and National Guard under the guise of the manufactured war on terror.

“The war on terrorism has made the U.S. armed forces active participants in homeland defense and, in the process, has prompted changes in the responsibilities and mission scope of the Defense Department. Assuming that the military forces serve a supporting and supplementary role, working in conjunction with law enforcement authorities, prohibitions against military involvement in anti-terror operations are generally moot — or even irrelevant… It is in this context that the military’s post-September 11 homeland security initiatives must be analyzed vis-á-vis Posse Comitatus,” writes Juliette Kayyem for National Defense Magazine.

In short, Posse Comitatus is dead so far as the government and the Pentagon are concerned. Increasingly there is little divide between the military and local law enforcement.

Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11 establishing a Council of Governors, described as an “advisory panel” that will allow the Pentagon to implement contingency plans designed to seize control of state National Guard in the event of a “national emergency.”

Bush began the process in 2008 when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act. “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions,” the legislation states.

The “terror threat” on the water and shoreline of Long Beach does not specify al-Qaeda or scary Muslim terrorists.

In late April, we reported on the U.S. Military in Kentucky training to confront Tea Party protesters and anti-government demonstrators, who in official intelligence advisories are described as bomb-making terrorists. “Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity” during a protest at Fort Knox. The Tea Party “groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience,” an intel report connected to the exercise stated.

A report issued in 2008 by the U.S. Army War College discussed the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis. The report from the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute warned that the U.S. military must prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States” that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.”

For more than a decade the Pentagon has endeavored to acclimate Americans to the presence of troops on the streets. Instances of the Pentagon putting troops on the streets are numerous and have increased in frequency over the last few years.

In March of 2009, Infowars reported on U.S. Army soldiers dispatched in Samson, Alabama, supposedly in response to a rampaging gunman.

In December, 2008, the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center and the local California Highway Patrol worked together “in a joint effort to reduce accidents and drinking and driving” in San Bernardino County, a blatant violation of Posse Comitatus.

The Iowa National Guard planned an exercise in the small town of Arcadia but rolled back the invasion after citizens complained about soldiers patrolling the streets of an American town.

Military police were positioned at the 2009 Kentucky Derby and in April of the same year 400 National Guard Combat Support Battalion troops were dispatched to “maintain public order” at the Boston Marathon.

In April of 2009, an Infowars reader sent a page taken from the Hardeman County, Tennessee, Bulletin Times announcing a seat belt checkpoint to be conducted on April 4 “in conjunction with a Homeland Security training exercise by the 251st Military Police in Bolivar who recently returned from Iraq.”

On April 15, 2009, we reported on how the Maryland National Guard was put on alert in anticipation of Tax Day nationwide Tea Party protests. A Force Protection Advisory issued on April 11 instructed the National Guard to be on alert during the Tea Party protests because Guardsmen and Guard facilities might become “targets of opportunity.” It was later learned that the Department of Homeland Security had put the protesters under surveillance.

Joint military, Department of Homeland Security, and local police and emergency exercises are an integral part of this ongoing effort to acclimate the American people to the prospect of troops and heavily armed cops on the streets.