Skip to comments.Big Media Won't Touch Agenda 21
Posted on 02/03/2005 10:37:05 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
click here to read article
Exerpted from the Asia Times, 2 Feb 05:
The Homeland Security State
Asia Times | February 2, 2005
By Nick Turse
THE MILITARY HALF
If you're in the United States and reading this on the Internet, the Federal Bureau of Information (FBI)may be spying on you at this very moment.
Under provisions of the USA Patriot (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, the Department of Justice has been collecting e-mail and IP (Internet protocol, a computer's unique numeric identifier) addresses, without a warrant, using trap-and-trace surveillance devices ("pen-traps"). Now, the FBI, Justice's principle investigative arm, may be monitoring the web-surfing habits of Internet users - also without a search warrant - that is, spying on you with no probable cause whatsoever.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, with the announcement of a potentially never-ending "war on terror" and in the name of "national security", the administration of President George W Bush embarked on a global campaign that left behind it two war-ravaged states (with up to 100,000 civilian dead in just one of them); an offshore "archipelago of injustice" replete with "ghost jails", and a seemingly endless series of cases of torture, abuse and the cold-blooded murder of prisoners. That was abroad. In the US, too, things have changed as America became "the Homeland" and an already powerful and bloated national security state developed a civilian corollary fed by fear-mongering, partisan politics, and an insatiable desire for governmental power, turf and budget.
A host of disturbing and mutually reinforcing patterns have emerged in the resulting new Homeland Security State - among them: a virtually unopposed increase in the intrusion of military, intelligence, and "security" agencies into the civilian sector of US society; federal-government abridgment of basic rights; denials of civil liberties on flimsy or previously illegal premises; warrantless sneak-and-peak searches; the wholesale undermining of privacy safeguards (including government access to library circulation records, bank records, and records of Internet activity); the greater empowerment of secret intelligence courts (such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court) that threaten civil liberties; and heavy-handed federal and local law-enforcement tactics designed to chill, squelch, or silence dissent.
While it's true that most Americans have yet to feel the brunt of such policies, select groups, including Muslims, Arab immigrants, Arab-Americans and anti-war protesters have served as test subjects for a potential Homeland Security juggernaut that, if not stopped, will only expand....
I was watching a documentary last night about intelligence. The F.B.I. was handed information about Mossouie(spel?)> They wanted a search warrant to search his home and computer. The search warrant was turned down by a judge who said there wasn't enough evidence to obtain one.
Imagine how different a day 9-11 would be if they had gotten that warrant.
Let them snoop on my IP, if it can stop terrorist by doing so, so be it.
Do a search on Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the feds, if you want to get boiling angry this afternoon.
"You don't kill spiders by crushing a couple of their legs, you have to crush their head to make sure they'll die. The UN is guiding all of these other communist agencies ......." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335656/posts?page=302#302
We need to kill America's participation in the UN and the UN's participation in how the American legislative process funtions if we expect to ever regain what we once had..... well deserved national pride.
Going after these groups that support land grabs probably is a waste of time, money and effort.
I will support killing the UN 150%, with cash, time and certainly a much more concerted effort than mt wife will appreciate. Just being better than the other guy isn't my goal. I want America's REPUBLIC to glow as the sole light of example in the worlds skies.
Thanks, I'll do it now..bbl
2330 fps/2400 ft/lbs
Most powerful revolver in the world.
I found Sibel Edmonds......it's in another language. All I could make out was 'whistle blower' that was it.
All the usual suspects. It makes me want to spit.
Thanks, I'll have a look.
I think the Statue of Liberty is safely in the hands of the Hertiage Foundation = UN = Agenda 21....as is the Liberty Bell.
So as not to hijack this wonderful thread......you have FReepmail.
Reagan saw what treaties such as the L.O.S.T. would do to our country. L.O.S.T. is merely an extention of Agenda 21. They are all linked to handing over control of this country to the UN.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."
- Edward R. Murrow
"In this administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the president."
- White House aide quoted in Capitol Hill Blue, June 4
When I write a column on an issue about which folks hold passionate views, I get a lot of feedback. Most of the feedback is usually from readers who are supportive of my perspective; some is from those who disagree. And of course, I welcome both. The right to freely express our opinions is one of the things that makes America great.
After my May 29 column featuring Sgt. Jimmy Massey telling of his experiences in Iraq, in addition to the kudos and messages of support for Massey's courageous stand, I got some e-mail messages from readers ardently taking issue with my column. Several of them asked: "Would you rather fight them over there or over here?" Whether they knew it or not, these readers were setting up what is known as a "false dilemma," providing a limited number of options (usually two), when there are actually more than that, in this case dozens, perhaps hundreds more. Fighting them over there and over here for one. Fighting them neither place for another. And it would be helpful to know who "them" is. Another famous example of a false dilemma is President Bush's statement "You're either with us or with the terrorists." Again, many more possibilities exist here than the "either/or" option put forward by Bush.
Another question that was posed by a reader after my last column: "Why do you hate George Bush?" Indeed, it seems that if you disagree with any decision made by George W. Bush, you open yourself to the accusation of Bush-bashing. Former President Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about those who believe we should march lock step with the president: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
If we don't stand up and show our rifles they will be successful. We must let them know that this is our country and we are the worlds worst terrorists when it comes to protecting our home.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain
Looks to me like a few different states are represented in this post. Lets brainstorm ways we can work together on this issue.
I like that. It says all that needs to be said.
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.