Let me start this diary by saying, this is the kind shit that keeps me up at night. Contemplating the outcomes of the subject explored in this diary scares me. It causes me to lose hope for the future, it causes me to be fearful in the present. Because to me, this notion, this topic we are exploring runs counter to everything I have ever been taught to believe about my own country, either as a child in school, or as a veteran who served in the military. This sort of thing makes me feel like a naive fool for ever believing any of the hype about "Freedom" or "Bravery" or "Patriotism."
So many things in our country are simply, WRONG. So many things in our country that are supposed to be good, and helpful and just, are instead backasswards, and cruel. And when I take the long view, about something like this, all I see on the horizon is evil and cruelty, and it scares me for me, for my husband and my children and my friends. It feels surreal to me. But that is what I said 12 years ago, and 8 years ago, and 4 years ago, and now? It seems to either be maintaining, this surreality, or worsening. When I allow myself to be totally aware of it, I am speechless, frightened, and depressed. It's the reason I haven't much felt like posting anything but a few comments here and there recently. Everyday I post something on the internet, I feel like I have been given 10 more feet of new rope to hang myself with. On days when this realization haunts me, I am not sharing the world wide web with a benign community of fellow thinkers, but instead making myself vulnerable to a creepy eye in the virtual sky.
I was working on this diary a month ago. It has sat in my hopper, I have been too chicken to post it. Then imagine my surprise when Snowden's work hit the fan. I would definitely read the following material with his work in mind.
And just so we are clear, all of the material quoted in this diary was found via regular internet searches. No leaked material was used. Simply sites that were up for public consumption and nothing more. For example--consider this story while reading my diary on this topic. Tennessee Official thinks complaints about water quality qualify as an act of terrorism.
This diary will be long. My suggestion to those who have trouble with long pieces, print it out, and take a highlighter to it, and then write notes in the margin. Think of it as homework for grown ups. I would suggest printing some of these documents up too. Take a thumb drive and down load them, but print them out and take a highlighter to them. You know it's bad, and now is the time to rip the band-aid off and see just how bad it is, so you can act accordingly.
I have said it many times before, but it seems to get very little traction. The Patriot Act is the reason that corporations have so many new powers, that seem from the outside looking in, to be Police Powers.
First let's define Police Powers:
The inherent power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within it's jurisdiction in the interest of general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare except where legally prohibited. Merriam Webster
The Patriot Act gave large corporations Police Powers. There is no other explanation I have been able to come up with, to find a reasonable answer that reflects the reality we have been confronted with repeatedly.
This is why, in 2010, BP along with the Unified Command were able to create a no fly zone over the Gulf of Mexico, it's why local Gulf residents complained of being harassed, or threatened with arrest, without warrants for photographing the mess in the Gulf. Sometimes the people harassing the citizens were government, and sometimes they were hired mercenaries or private security guards. Those who watched this unfold, got the distinct impression that BP called the shots and not the government. It's why a reporter working with Frontline and ProPublica was harassed by BP Security for photographing a billboard on a public thoroughfare. And it's why there have been attempts to create a press blackout in Mayflower Arkansas with regards to the dilbit spill that has wrecked a neighborhood and polluted a local wetland.
We all knew [I say we--meaning me and mine] that the Patriot Act was bad news. Not because we didn't want to protect America from genuine terrorist threats, such as those that conducted the 9-11 attacks and the OKC Bombing. It was bad news because it was rammed through in a panic, it was poorly written, and it has turned out to be nothing but a sweetheart deal for corporations, giving them the means to use our security assets to maintain their bottom line at the expense of our civil rights, while simultaneously using our tax dollars to do so.
In my experience, most discussions about the Patriot Act revolve around the internet almost exclusively, such as "Roving Wiretaps" and the gag order on Librarians who serve patrons who are under investigation by DHS. Not much as been devoted to this other aspect of the law, regarding critical infrastructure, which is shocking to me, given it's apparent role in our environmental law, and our unfortunate financial sector.
Maybe I have read too much into this, but this has been something that has bothered me for a long time. When I started pondering why the Gulf Gusher played out like it did, this was the one answer that kept appearing at the bottom of each dig. A piece of several puzzles if you ask me, that explains so much, as to why American citizens have been and are disenfranchised on their own soil.
Here is an interesting excerpt from a background piece regarding the Patriot Act:
The President's National Strategy for Homeland Security, which proposed the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), established as one of the Department's core missions the protection of America's infrastructure. Homeland Security Act of 2002:Critical Infrastructure
Sounds good so far right? Nothing to argue there. We don't want an act of terrorism to destroy our country's economic viability. This is why former President Bush urged people to go shopping after the attacks on our soil, at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As shallow as it sounded, he wanted to keep the cash flowing, so that "capital circulation" wouldn't be constricted by a lack of normal, daily business transactions that help to drive this nation's economy. During that time, many people were fearful and stayed home from their normal activities. No one knew where the next attack might come from or be. We were all scared.
Our government then took steps to protect our economy. Sounds reasonable, right? Because if we don't have an economy, then everything else sort of falls apart. We cannot buy fuel or raw materials or gear for the military or anything. No economy or a severely diminished economy would push us back in time and make us even more vulnerable to our enemies or natural disasters.
The proposal had the new Department responsible for comprehensively evaluating the vulnerabilities of America's critical infrastructure, including food and water systems, agriculture, health systems, and emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas, and oil, dams), transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), the chemical, and defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national monuments, and icons. Homeland Security Act 2002: Critical infrastructure
There are many, good reasons to tighten security around the items and industries listed above. However, I posit that while the justification for increased security was perfectly valid and expected, but that these new laws have become points of abuse by becoming entangled [by accident or design] with revolving door politics and cronyism, creating what is essentially a fascist state whenever these corporations-named as critical infrastructure are challenged by the average American citizen, especially if those Americans publicly protest the activities of any of the given industries listed for any reason at all.
Some of these cases are ridiculous to the extreme, and yet boldly executed by the state as a proxy for private industries in what I can only describe as State Sanctioned SLAPP Suits.
For me, this also explains the unusually heavy handedness of law enforcement against OWs protesters. Banks and Financial institutions are listed as critical infrastructure. Legally, they are entitled to extra federal protection from any people deemed as "potential terrorists." I use the word "terrorist," because the way OWs protesters were treated, seemed it indicate that was the status assigned to them by law enforcement. Now the police aren't the feds [or are they?], but remember, now there is extra information sharing between agencies at every level of the government, as well as between police/government and corporate security. Little hints about this have been strewn about in various news stories like the Propublica piece, as well as the quote below. The word "gift" is in reference to the donations from big banks to the NYPD.
“This gift is especially disturbing to us because it creates the appearance that there is an entrenched dynamic of the police protecting corporate interests rather than protecting the First Amendment rights of the people,” says Heidi Boghosian of the National Lawyers Guild, which has had legal observers posted at the major Occupy Wall Street marches. “They’ve essentially turned the financial district into a militarized zone. Salon.com 2011”
These financial entanglements wouldn't have to be exclusively in response to OWs, because the Patriot Act is already in place and had been for a decade. And given that the banks probably foresaw some kind of unrest about the part they played in the mortgage fraud, and the newly sprung tent cities, and the financial crash that left so many people jobless, it doesn't seem to me, too hard to predict that they might feel the need for a bit of extra protection from domestic anger. Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following:
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” he said. “And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.qtd by Alternet 2013”
Be sure and remember the elements of the quote directly above when you start reading the Patriot Act. It will make even more sense, beyond the "too big to fail" bs. Shining a light on this, creates a glare that outlines a series of fearsome
iron triangles.
What is truly interesting is that originally, the New York City Council passed resolutions that rejected the Patriot Act, which they found to be "un-Patriotic" in it's assault on Civil Liberties. There was grave concern over new powers given to local law enforcement:
The vote follows months of negotiations between resolution supporters and New York City Council leadership. A major sticking point in the original proposal of the resolution centered on language prohibiting the New York Police Department from enforcing immigration laws, collecting information on activist groups and businesses, and refraining from establishing an anti-terrorism reporting database. Washington Post 2004.
"246 Municipalities, counties and three states," all passed resolutions or legislation that opposed the Patriot Act due to their observation that this new federal legislation wasn't really about Patriotism. Reading this diary makes it very clear that the people of New York could see clearly, what many are only just now figuring out.
I think, I hope that many people here know, that our laws have been turned against us. That in an attempt to protect ourselves from future terror attacks, we have allowed our civil rights to be undermined by corporations seeking protection not only from alleged terrorists, but also from our own laws, that should ensure they pay taxes and are accountable to the very people, whose tax dollars have supplied big bonu--er I mean, bail outs, and other forms of corporate welfare.
This Critical Infrastructure clause not only affected how security assets were assigned, and when, but also affected our Sunshine Laws and our FOIA or Freedom of Information Act laws.
The definitions of Critical Infrastructure:
"systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health and safety, or any combination of these matters. Homeland Security Act 2002:Critical Infrastructure"
So when a group of citizens openly protest, and use
civil disobedience as a means of shutting down a district or a bank or a pipeline--it seems to me, at least on the face value of these words, that their acts satisfy the definition above. The catch all clauses--"National Economic Security, and Any combination of these matters". But even when nonviolently breaking the law, does that qualify the protesters as "terrorists" or their acts, "terrorism". I would say no, in fact it seems to me, an abuse of the power structure to use these overly broad definitions as an excuse to manhandle citizens who offer no threat to life or limb, but simply seek to challenge corporations that are abusing a system that has been unlawfully stacked to perform in favor of said corporations, at the expense of the people.
This seems eminently true, when citizens are in the act of protecting themselves and their communities from toxic spills or predatory lending practices that ruin their property values, their business holdings, their long term economic viability, and in some cases such as the Gulf Gusher or the Pipeline ruptures, their long term health. In addition citizens may also be in the process of protecting themselves and their communities from the implied threat therein, posed by companies known for their negligence in these matters due to prior cases, rulings, and extensive documentation via the media.
Basically individual citizens and communities are up against a Iron Triangle(s) that uses the Patriot Act like a sledge hammer to destroy any legal opposition.
There are more definitions to be explored.
Critical infrastructure Information:
Information not customarily available in the public domain and related to the security of critical infrastructure or protected systems. Homeland Security Act 2002:Critical Infrastructure
FYI, everything quoted here, was available on the public domain.
This next definition/quote should really catch your attention.
Actual, potential, or threatened interference with, attack on, compromise of, or incapacitation of critical infrastructure or protected systems by either physical or computer based attack, or other similar conduct [including misuse or unauthorized access to all types of communications and data transmission systems] that violates federal, state or local law, harms interstate commerce of the United States, or threatens public health and safety.ibid
The weasel words that stand out to me--threatened interference with--- what else is a protest, if not "threatened interference." What else is a peaceful, human chain or a sit-in, if not the incapacitation of an entity via peaceful, nonviolent protest? This law is so vaguely worded that it seems obvious to me, how convenient it would be to declare any and all protesters alleged "terrorists" or "potential terror threats" by virtue of this definition alone.
But I wonder, upon reading certain Patriot Act documents, if this--the Patriot Act is why the "Banks" are too big to fail?" Has the government painted itself into some sort of legal corner here?
On Bank Protest Day, there was "interference," in that people made a point of openly, verbally, visibly transferring their funds from institutions officially named in Mortgage Fraud Suits, and into community banks, and credit unions.
Some bank-protesters were manhandled and arrested as a result. Why? They were causing interference, or in the words of a Democracy Now host, protesters arrested, were accused of being "disruptive" and these protesters self identified with a group of angry customers and citizens that threatened more interference through various acts of protest ranging from transferring accounts, to marches. Wow--sounds dangerous!
But is this type of interference, disruption, etc., Is this truly a type of "Terrorism" and is it conceivable that the banks and the government violated the rights of these citizens protesting these institutions in a nonviolent manner by treating them as if they were in fact, "terrorists"?
Why would people protest being robbed blind, forced out of their homes, jobless and destitute? Isn't that what America is all about? How could being placed on some ubiquitous government list be worse, than the reality of not being self sufficient, productive adults?
Interference is a surprising choice of words. I imagine that it was originally chosen to encompass the aspect of critical infrastructure involving virtual reality--telecommunications, internet transactions, and cracking, but instead has been broadened in scope to include activities that would normally fall under lawful protest or in the very least, nonviolent, civil disobedience. Mission Creep Anyone?
"The gradual broadening of the original objectives of a mission or organization."
Webster's Online. That is how it looks to me. Perhaps I am being generous in assuming that this wasn't intentional?
Getting back to the Infrastructure Clause:
...the ability of critical infrastructure or protected systems to resist such interference, compromise, or incapacitation, including planned or past assessments, projection, or estimate of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure or protected system, including security testing, risk evaluation, thereto, risk management planning, or risk audit, or any planned or past operational problem or solution regarding critical infrastructure...including repair, recovery, reconstruction, insurance, or continuity to the extent it related to such interference, compromise or incapacitation. ibid
Would that the government protect family planning clinics with such zeal.
What this clause tells me is that money is spent doing drills, and hiring people to make these assessments and identify vulnerabilities and potential threats,etc., It would be fine if these drills involved responding to genuine terror-threats, but what about protesters? Do we respond to protesters the same way one responds to a genuine terror threat? Or Should we? And what about Journalists? How are we supposed to deal with journalists? Do we shut them up by also putting them on lists, or arresting them?
And when we explore the information sharing aspect of this, it seems on the surface to be a good idea, if you assume that everyone knows where the line should be. But obviously everyone isn't informed especially when you consider stories like this: The BP/Government Police State-Salon.com
Reporters have been complaining for weeks about BP, the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard working to keep reporters away from wrenching images of oil-covered birds and oil-soaked beaches. Greenwald 2010
It's one thing to share information about an potential violent terror act, with other law enforcement organizations, because there is a vested interest in preventing intended violence. It's another thing entirely to basically put some random American on a list, for various agencies, as if they were a terrorist, for nothing more than non-violent protest or in this case, simply doing their job as a journalist--Whether a citizen or journalist, this act violates due process for starters, as well as fails to show a public interest in corralling the person in question, because there is no intent on committing violent or destructive acts. Unless of course one assumes, that providing in-depth coverage of a breaking story, caused by a big corporation, in a newspaper, or on television or on a blog is a violent act of terrorism?
If the person in question poses no serious, viable threat, other than to make corporate bosses uncomfortable with their personal politics, then I fail to see how any good is served, turning that person into a defacto criminal without a trial or indictment or even a charge that can be substantiated or challenged by the "accused". We all remember the No-Fly-Terror-Watch-List, well that can't be the only list, because remember this is all about sharing "critical information" between agencies and companies. I wonder if this affects job searches for certain Americans? And when or if they will ever find out, how and by whom their name was flagged, and why?
It amazes me still to this day, that I see no reference to the Patriot Act or Critical Infrastructure. Why? Compare the complaint above to the statements in this MotherJones piece from 2013, below. Reporters Say Exxon is Impeding Spill Coverage in Arkansas. if you read these stories and the documents, it becomes very clear that the line between corporation and government is extremely blurred, to the point that in some of these stories there appears to be no line of demarcation between one or the other.
Hibblen says county officials seem to be deferring to Exxon when it comes to reporters. "This gets back to who's really in charge, and it seems like ExxonMobil," he said. "When you throw the media out, that's when the media really get their tentacles up. MotherJones 2013"
Further reading of the Patriot Act document indicates that when information is voluntarily submitted to DHS, that if entity submitting this information requests non-disclosure, that the law allows our government to withold this information with impunity, from any FOIA request.
So lets look at this list again--
America's critical infrastructure:
...food and water systems, agriculture, health systems, and emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas, and oil, dams), transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), the chemical, and defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national monuments, and icons.
This is one of those things that just wears me out looking at it or even thinking about it. Because to me, a topic like this should have been first and foremost on the minds and lips of the people from the start. Anyone else seeing a list of corporate names at this point, remembering a question along the lines of, "Why does our government keep giving them a free pass! Why is our government allowing these companies to screw us [the people] over?"
This is the primary reason we cannot reform our nation's corrupt political system. This is why peaceful and lawful protesters are being brutalized, and it just blows my mind that no one discusses it. Any small victories we accomplish openly, are undermined by this. Beyond the fact that this document presupposes anyone who interferes with the listed entities above is a terrorist, it could be hiding "critical" information from us--the people, using our own tax dollars and security assets to do the hiding. And now we have been alerted to various surveillance programs. Remember if you have nothing to hide, you probably have nothing to fear snark
The government also provides advisories and alerts for companies/entitles listed as critical infrastructure, regarding potential "interference." Alerts about who? Oh yea, more lists. I mean what else would it be, other than more lists.
Corporations should NEVER EVER have police powers--EVER! They are businesses, not agencies. Corporations should NEVER EVER have military powers--EVER.
But when we combine these laws with the Citizen's United Ruling--what do we have? Corporations that are treated as people insomuch that they are given rights as a person, but can never tried for crimes and then sent to jail like a regular person/voter. Meanwhile what happens to people who openly protest the companies protected by these ridiculous and vaguely written laws? Companies that are given police powers, backed not only by law enforcement, and our regular courts, but by secret courts as well--let that sink in. Secret Courts.
Cornell has a version on their site and it provides equally disturbing langauge:
42 USC 519c Critical Infrastructure.
Private business, government, and the national security apparatus increasingly depend on an interdependent network of critical physical and information infrastructures, including telecommunications, energy, financial services, water, and transportation sectors. Cornell 42 USC 519c
Further more, *it is the policy of the United States:
(1) that any physical or virtual disruption of the operation of the critical infrastructures of the United States be rare, brief, geographically limited in effect, manageable, and minimally detrimental to the economy, human and government services, and national security of the United States; ibid
Thus far, no where in this document, are there caveats naming the civil rights of American Citizens, protecting their speech or right to assemble and/or protest. An interesting omission in my opinion. In the previous write up, there was extensive discussion about how information voluntarily shared with DHS could not be restricted if it violated laws that protected public health and safety, and environmental law. Which--okay, that sounds fair. But once again, nothing in there about private citizens legally protesting these institutions and how those acts might differentiate from violent terrorist attacks.
These big businesses are getting lots and lots of special treatment that gives them greater economic advantages over smaller businesses or those business in areas not deemed "critical." All the more reason to make a constitutional wall, separating corporation and state. Think of all the fear-mongering over socializing the banks, and here, its sort of already been accomplished. All the more reason to invoke anti-trust laws. These banks take our money, destroy our mortgage industry via fraud, assist in the destruction of the EU financial system, and then have protesters surveilled, arrested and harassed under federal laws.
When a group of protesters decide to disrupt business-as-usual, they do not seem to be protected by the same civil rights laws we all imagine that we have, because their protest, even enshrined in our Bill of Rights is counter to the directives of the Patriot Act. We could say the same thing about Reporters, whose stories might be labeled as "disruptive" should the stories be printed. So while it appears we still have those rights, the patriot act shackles us by pitting us--individual citizens against corporate entities that already enjoy unlimited financial and therefore legal resources in comparison to the average citizen, but now also enjoin that advantage with unlimited federal security resources as well.
We can protest, as long as we don't disrupt anything. And the word disrupt can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Just like adjectives like "potential" can be added on to words vague words like "interference" or "threat".
...(2) that actions necessary to achieve the policy stated in paragraph (1) be carried out in a public-private partnership involving corporate and non-governmental organizations; and...ibid.
But here is the best part:
...(3)to have in place a comprehensive and effective program to ensure the continuity of essential Federal Government functions under all circumstances.ibid.
So the government is saying, it cannot function without certain private services and as a result, there seems to be no delineation between federal government and businesses labeled as critical infrastructure. That the day to day operation of both are considered one and the same, with that last clause thrown in to the mix. According to the Cornell site, all the information gathered in sent to an agency for analysis, so that community leaders and policy makers can be instructed in how to deal with "disturbances."
There shall be established the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) to serve as a source of national competence to address critical infrastructure protection and continuity through support for activities related to counterterrorism, threat assessment, and risk mitigation.ibid.
Here we are not only dealing with terrorism and disasters, but what about protests? The wording is so vague that it seems obvious by recent events that "lawful Protests" are included as a potential cause of "incidents" or "threats" or "Interference."
Further digging uncovered the CSG, State's Official Guide to Critical Infrastructure.
Even if you don't care for this diary, I highly recommend you check out the State's Guide. It is a fascinating document.
As I read this document, it wasn't until we reached page 43 of the document (pp58 of the PDF file) that the discussion turned to legal ramifications outside this Federal-State-Industrial Complex sort of emerged:
The law as it applies to critical infrastructure protection involves statutes enacted by Congress and state legislators, and regulations promulgated by federal and state government agencies, many of which were put in place to address specific issues characteristic of each regulated area. Therefore, many parties have jurisdiction to make law concerning some part of the nation's critical infrastructure. The legal issues that states are currently dealing with when making critical infrastructure policy stem almost completely from issues regarding information sharing, including questions regarding information protection, privacy, right to know issues, anti-trust issues, and even liability issues. State Official's Guide to Critical Infrastructure pp43
Notice, no mention of "Civil Rights Issues," until the FOIA/FOIL paragraphs.
The federal government's Homeland Security Act created new exemptions to the federal and state Freedom of Information laws. The Critical Infrastructure Information Act {CIIA}, part of the Homeland Security Law, states that when a business voluntarily submits, "critical infrastructure information" to the Department of Homeland Security, it is exempt from federal FOIA. Further, if the federal government gives that information to a state, then that information is exempt from state FOIL as well. The law also grants businesses immunity from civil liability for violations of securities law, civil rights law, environmental, labor, and consumer protections, and health and safety laws should violations be revealed in the information they provide the department. Ibid
Now I am thoroughly confused, because this flies in the face of information provided in the first documented quoted. And in addition to shining a light on issues of protestors of Big Energy, also makes me wonder about how much various security agencies knew about the impending housing collapse, and other financial sector issues, but are prohibited by law from sharing this with the American Public, who bailed those institutions out with Tax Dollars while simultaneously being screwed by predatory lending practices and outright mortgage fraud. The Treasury Department is listed as the DHS representative/lead for our Banks and Financial Institutions. So is anyone else really wondering how long they knew that this collapse was coming? DHS is bound by law not to reveal it though, even though, that institution is supposed to be working for US, the People, and even if DHS shared that info with the treasury or with the a state agency, they too would be bound by law to nondisclosure.
Just reading the two quotes directly above, tells me that the Patriot Act needs to be thrown out.
I scrolled down to the glossary and thought this was interesting:
Incapacitation: An abnormal condition when the level of products and services a critical infrastructure provides its customers is reduced. While typically a temporary condition an infrastructure is considered incapacitated when the duration of reduced performance causes a debilitating impact. ibid pp71
I like the blatant use of the word, "Customer" in this quote.
Once again, no delineation is made between an incapacitation caused by a terror attack, as opposed to a lawful protest, journalists doing their jobs, or nonviolent civil disobedience. At what point does "Incapacitation" trump Civil Rights?
With the outcomes potentially adding more damage to the protester or journalist, in addition to having their rights violated, and their voices silenced, and possibly, in some cases, their health ruined, they might also be added to a list that affects their security clearance, should they have or need one, their viability as a worker and perhaps even their freedom of movement. Some folks have said not to worry, that only "terrorists" are being targeted, but I offer, that belief has been knocked down. Two examples:
Guardian UK 2010: Mark Ruffalo 'added to terrorism watchlist' over Gasland.
"State Homeland Security Director James Powers says he's worried about vandalism." The Maddow Blog: Pennsylvania Tracks Fracking Protesters
Vandalism is terrorism now? Who knew.
“I want to deliver a warning this afternoon: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” Mr. Wyden said. He invoked the public’s reaction to the illegal domestic spying that came to light in the mid-1970s, the Iran-contra affair, and the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants. Senator Wyden (D) Oregon.
Senators Say Patriot Act is being Misinterpreted. NYT 2011
The Patriot Act, and the
"secret rulings" associated with it, create a terrible transparency problem for our government at every level. As an individual citizen who does not have access to these "secret rulings" affected by a Federal Law that can override every one of my individual "unalienable" rights at the behest of a corporate entity, for me it is beyond the reconciliation with anything I would consider legitimate.
The enormous appearance of impropriety is first and foremost. This gigantic assumption that I will simply trust in other fallible mortal beings to always do what's right, even when huge amounts of cash and power are involved without public oversight is ridiculous in the extreme.
There is a clear, and irrefutable conflict of interest generated in every direction by these laws, once again, without the ability of Tax Payers to be able to identify clearly what their dollars are supporting. And given the acts associated with this law in the recent past, it's clear that good faith need not be brought up as a counterpoint.
Even for civilians, the notion of "Trust but Verify" is very important, and yet, there is no ability to verify in a timely manner, and so there can be no grounds for trust, just as there are no grounds for privacy, or habeas corpus, freedom of expression, peaceable assemblies, redress of grievances--all of it is gone. Even though some of us still naively act as if these rights still exist, its a facade. Individuals are allowed to do these things by the generous hands of people who have declined to let all of us know what they have on us, what they want on us, in terms of information. If you doubt me, consult with individuals on the No-Fly-List.
Without trust, or certain unalienable rights, we are all potential "threats" and that means then we aren't really citizens who contribute to a society. We are just inmates, and the powers that be, wait patiently for us to "screw up." What kind of mustache twirling villains would go for this sort of set up?
I know, somewhere out there, a Dudley Do-Right DHS worker will say, that they do it to protect us. But isn't it too bad that you have to protect us from our rights and freedoms? That you feel the need to protect us from the knowledge that big industries are poisoning us, and stealing our money? That kind of "protection" I could do without. Show me a genuine threat and I will back you 110 percent. But this? It's a shell and pea game. One genuine threat out of how many civil or labor rights abuses? How can I defend the indefensible especially if I cannot even see what you have done or why.
Whatever the intentions of individual offices, this pattern of secrecy and distrust cannot be allowed to go on. This pattern of abuse, and scamming by institutions that have every motive to take advantage of this sweetheart deal, need to be cut off the federal teat immediately, and made to answer for their actions in a meaningful and timely manner.
Further examples of what I believe is the Patriot Act at Work, or relevant works on the subject that might further interest readers:
DePaul Business Law Journal Vol.12 PP97 {1999/2000}Critical Infrastructure Protection: Threats to Privacy and other Civil Liberties and Concerns with Government Mandates on Industry. O'Neil and Dempsey
Truthout: Patriot Act Use Expands May 2003 The Patriot Act provisions are being used in non-terror-related cases.
ACLU: Don't Blame the Wall for Pre-9-11 Failures 2004 A member of the ACLU warns us--foretells current conflicts with Patriot Act.
SFGATE: Defending Labor's Rights to Protest the War 2005--Patriot Act invoked directly against protesters.
In These Times: The GOP's Democracy Double Standards 2009
Roy Greenslade: Reporters Suffer Oil Spill Harassment Guardian UK
Federal Cops to Gulf Journalists: Don't Dig, It's Illegal {BTW the video is a classic} Don't dig up our buried oil, because it's of a National Security Issue!
Propublica Photographer: I was followed by BP Security and then Detained by Police. How else could BP security get away with this, if our government didn't allow it?
Science in the Gulf Aug 20 2010: Science Friday This story says that DHS officers harassed scientists, confiscated samples and notes without a warrant, and these officers invoked "National Security" as a reason for their behavior.
"Within the first few days of Occupy Wall Street, protesters began to notice the presence of the NYPD's Counter Terrorism Unit at Liberty Plaza. Joanne Stocker, who has become a fixture since day one at Wall Street, recalls within the first few days waking up to a Counter Terrorism Unit van, parked on the fringes of Liberty Plaza, which was taking video of her and her friends while they slept."Occupy and the Militarisation of Policing Protest. Guardian UK 2011
Democratic Senators Issue Strong Warning about Patriot Act. NYT 2012
An internal DHS report entitled “SPECIAL COVERAGE: Occupy Wall Street," dated October of last year, opens with the observation that "mass gatherings associated with public protest movements can have disruptive effects on transportation, commercial, and government services, especially when staged in major metropolitan areas."Exclusive: Homeland Security Kept Tabs on Occupy Wallstreet.Rolling Stone 2012
Further down in the story a quote from the DHS reports, mentions directly, how OWs protests are potential threats to "critical infrastructure."
Homeland Security Tracked Occupy Wallstreet Peaceful Activists Demonstrations. Huffpo 2013 This is a really interesting story too, a nice counterpoint to the Rolling Stone piece above.
The Last Mystery of the Financial Crisis I believe it is plausible that our financial meltdown was caused by these clauses in the Patriot Act. That our regulators weren't asleep, but in fact were painted into a corner by certain clauses that give immunity to companies deemed critical infrastructure and require the government to participate in NonDisclosure.
Sherwin Smith, Tennessee Official, Says Water Quality Complaints could be an "Act of Terrorism." This is interesting. It's not about some unknown criminal poisoning water or depriving the town of potable water somehow, or vandalizing the water processing plant--merely the complaint filed could be an act of terrorism, and is defined by this inconvenienced official, as an act of violence and therefore terrorism. Are you awake yet?
I have said this many times, but it bears worth repeating: Our national security assets are devoted to corporate interests, at our expense. And that expense is in terms of our tax dollars, as well as our civil rights and freedoms.