Posted on 10/29/2001 7:40:50 PM PST by spartan68
Rules of Engagement: The Overlooked Conspiracies
by J.J. Johnson - Sierra Times Editor & Chief 10.29.01
We have repeatedly stated in this series that we are at war. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind at this time - notably with the passage of "The Patriot Act of 2001". Civil libertarians scream over the fact that this new law is an insult to the Bill of Rights. Government officials meanwhile claim that law enforcement needs these new 'tools' to help fight terrorism. But the wording of the entire legislation begs the question: "Who are we at war with anyway?"
I took the bill itself and did a simple word search for something that I had expected to be part of this legislation. The fact that it was not even mentioned in the legislation makes even me, a loyal flag waver, begin to scratch my head.
A little history lesson:
During World War II, the U.S. government was also concerned about the control of communications. WW2 was the first time 'radio' went to war, like the Internet going to war for the first time now. Among the actions taken during WW2 was the confiscation of ham radio equipment. There has been no mention of ham radio equipment in the Patriot Act of 2001. Basic HAM equipment can be obtained much more cheaply than a computer or a laptop. In some cases, it can even be home constructed, relatively easily. Sure, the federal government already has the right to 'monitor' HAM frequencies. But, if orders are being given from overseas, it is impossible to pinpoint who may be 'listening'. Thus, even though it would be easier to broadcast over a myriad of radio frequencies, it was the Internet that has been targeted for federal monitoring.
We are told that 'these are the tools the law enforcement needs to fight terrorism' - but let's use logic. These new powers were pushed on Congress by this administration. If these are the 'tools' they need to get the job done, one could easily conclude that they know what is coming - or, they were just trying to cover all the bases, right? Much of this legislation and this whole "Homeland Security" concept was dreamed up long before September 11. Most of this new power given to law enforcement was being conducted, illegally at times, before September 11. Yet it did not stop what happened on September 11. In fact, if there is a person among us who supports this legislation, please explain how the new powers given to federal authorities would have stopped what happened on September 11, 2001.
Next: Anthrax. Remember the vaccines given to all military personnel? In fact, what's left of any vaccine available is under the control of the Department of Defense. I have been waiting patiently for someone to even consider using those vaccines for postal workers - knowing full well that more letters could mean more exposure. Am I the only one that finds this strange?
These are just a few. I'm sure there are more things that just seem very strange.
A growing number of people are beginning to believe the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was an operation conducted by this government. Every day someone comes up with a new 'conspiracy theory' about what happened on September 11, who's behind it, etc.
The greater conspiracy is not what is behind the September 11 attacks, but what is in front of the September 11 attacks. We are told that terrorists are attacking our way of life. Then we are told that to protect that way of life, we must discard it and give total authority to a government that has not completely proven itself as adequate 'protectors'. The talk show hosts seem ready to hammer anyone who criticizes these new powers; challenging the audience either give solutions, or shut up.
I am not one of those people - I have offered solutions. But I, like many others, am just an uneducated civilian who is too stupid to take care of myself or even analyze a problem. My duty is to continue to wave my flag for a country - a country whose representatives just voted its principles right out of existence.
According to the Friday Washington Post, top FBI and CIA officials believe that the anthrax attacks on Washington, New York and Florida are likely the work of one or more extremists in the United States who are probably not connected to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization. Scary right? Read the next paragraph:
"...Senior officials also are increasingly concerned that the bioterrorism is diverting public attention from the larger threat posed by bin Laden and his network, who are believed to be planning a second wave of attacks against U.S. interests here or abroad that could come at any time, officials said."
Well gee guys, wouldn't that make sense to divert our attention away from the next major attack? Here's a suggestion to the federal government: Don't underestimate an enemy. The Post also stated that none of the 60 to 80 threat reports gathered daily by U.S. intelligence agencies has connected the envelopes containing anthrax spores to any foreign terrorist groups. Okay, call me stupid again, but how many of those daily intelligence reports gave a forewarning of planes being turned into cruise missiles at skyscrapers?
From U.S. intelligence (one attack away from becoming an oxymoron), they make the speculative leap to domestic possibilities, including associates of right-wing hate groups. To the federal government: I'll save you the trouble. It's domestic. Proof? Look at the postmark on the envelopes. Now let me help you think 'out of the box': Those planes getting hijacked? That was domestic as well - they left from U.S. airports.
Try this: Stop looking for a reason to pass more bad laws and round people up, stop looking for 'links' to the attack on 09.11.01, and do a search on related bacteria that rogue microbiologists were working on. It's probably public information. Look for people who recently died of the flu in places like Trenton, and Boca Raton. That will probably lead you to a suspect. The worse thing to do in war is PLAY POLITICS. NOTE: When you find the person responsible - present the evidence - and then shoot them for waging war against the United States.
And finally, for all you folks who insist that the U.S. government is behind all of this, please explain why Christian churches are being bombed in Indonesia. Please explain why Christians are getting gunned down in Pakistani Churches. Please explain why the U.S. government would contaminate the same system that collects its tax revenue.
And please explain why we're still harping on conspiracies, while our rights have been thrown in the toilet.
I'll explain it to you. Here's my conspiracy theory: September 11, 2001 wasn't the beginning of anything. What if it was just part of an ongoing battle we knew little or nothing about - until we saw planes slamming into the World Trade Center? And what if this battle was against more than just Osama, but against powers and principalities?
Frankly, I have yet to see evidence that there is any U.S. government involvement in the September 11 attacks. Still, the rumors persist. It would be in the government's best interest to diffuse these rumors. I can't do it for them. I can say that with the passage of the Patriot Act of 2001, I am beginning to feel more terrorized than on September 11. All I've seen from this government so far are more laws that guarantee that we'll continue to be terrorized in the future. That's the overlooked conspiracy few people are talking about.
So, do we now wave our flags for patriotism, or in remembrance of what that flag once stood for?
No, terrorists also attack your way of life. In fact, 3 or 4 anthrax deaths have done more to strike terror into many in this country than the 5 to 6 thousand deaths on Sept 11. You can tie up every law enforcement agency in the country with strategic placement of baby powder and you can do it every day just as long as even one of those attacks is the real thing.
I did not however ask my goverment to pass this bill. I spend valuable time speaking against goverment and related issues, abortion being one of many. I consider the listening in and possible incarceration of myself or piers without recourse to be an attack on my way of life. Only statist's are bothered when the state stops functioning for a day (hell, an hour).
Yes BUT the representatives elected by the people of this country wrote, debated and passed the legislation. The President signed it into law and it is in effect unless and until all or parts of it are challenged and overturned by the Courts. That is the correct constitutional process that the Founders sat up. They did NOT envision asking YOU for your approval. This bill falls squarely under the constitutional requirement for the Federal Government to "provide for the common defense". If there are flaws and innocent people are caught up in the "net" then the constitutionality of the bill will be heard by the courts. This Government has all the means necessary to impose a "police state" without having to resort to this conspiracy many here seem to feel is being carried out. The very fact that the administration did NOT declare martial law at 6 pm on Sept 11 should tell you something, wouldn't you say?
And no, just because marshall law was refrained from doesn't mean I'll sit quietly and take my loss of liberty incrementaly. Again cute but not even close.
I'm not advocating democracy. The majority cannot overule the Constitution. No matter how patriotic or self serving that may be. Geesh, you'd think that the Founders had no idea we'd ever be in war. As if they could not comprehend these Liberties existing in war time...NOT. They themselves wrote them amidst war and enemies quite close. They are for peace time and war.
But feel free to play into the left's hand. Just don't pretend it's all so patriotic and conservative of you.
Sure you are, you want to be given a veto power over all laws you oppose. You tell me, just where in the process that I described is the "unconstitutional" element. You can't find it but are worried that by your involvement in certain causes you could be labeled a terrorist. I understand that fear and yes it could happen if your activities fall into the support of physical harm to someone else which I am sure you neither support or condone. Application of the law is only as fair as those enforcing the law. The thin reed that all of us grasp, is that those we place in power will use it wisely, otherwise ANY law would be perceived as too dangerous to pass. As I said earlier, if the government wants, it can easily turn this country into a police state within a week and all of our private guns will not mean a thing. The technology for what the Government wants to do is there regardless of any law they pass.
But wait! The Goverment could do even more so "be happy". Gee, sounds like a threat. Actually, I quite aware of the lefts efforts to peacefully overthrow institutions. Antonio Gramsci style if you will. He advocated just that since he felt that open revolutions tend not to work or stick in capitalist nations. So even though the goverment "could" go "police state" on us it's not in their interest to do so. Better to go the slower way. Now that does not mean I think every representative is part and parcel to a communist overthrow. But many more refuse to see the consequences such actions would bring.
What's wrong with thinking every law potentialy to dangerous to pass? I happen to think that's a good start.
I would have thought it conservative to...go figure?
Laws have long term effects that should always be examined. That's been (past tense) a staple of conservative thought. Fight off the activist's constant need to intervene and stimulate. Encourage serious contemplation of the issues and their effects ie...consider laws dangerous and debunk that notion before passing.
But you suggest waiting till the court tells us all it's ok. That is, do the Legislative branches work for them..?
Interesting take TexasForever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.