From the United States of America to the National Security States of America
By Al Martin

Are we to remain a nation convenient to our politicians? Are we to remain a nation that, according to Bob Dole is "The Land of the Provincial and Home of the Naïve Thank God"? In the rush for political expediency, the first two things that are always sacrificed are the hard-won rights and liberties of the people and any notion of fiscal accountability by their government.

      It's official. Tom Ridge has been sworn in as the director of the Office of Homeland Security, as of October 8, 2001. In his acceptance speech, he said, "Although some sacrifices will have to be made, the essential freedoms of the American people will be protected." And this is a very sinister message. What he's saying is that there obviously will be "sacrifices" in the civil rights of the people. And then he's saying the "essential" civil rights of the people will be maintained. But who determines what the word "essential" means? Who determines what "rights" are essential? Certainly the people are not going to determine that. And Ridge didn't say who it was who would be doing the determining. Then Bush spoke for a few more minutes and said that who would be doing the determining would be the "Supreme National Security Council." It will exist above the Homeland Security Directorate, and will be chaired by George Bush, various cabinet members and "certain others who have had long-term political allegiances to my father."

      What they're saying is that since this is a super-agency, which is immune from congressional oversight or judicial review, there has to be some regulatory body above it. That will make this Council extra-legal, extra-constitutional, extra-judicial, and extra-legislative. And it's even extra-executive. Bush then is essentially assuming supreme power as Chairman of the Supreme National Security Council.

      It's becoming clear how extraordinary the authority that this new agency, the Office of Homeland Security, along with its little brother, the Office of Cyberspace Security, really has. It means that this agency's authority effectively guts the Whistleblower Act of 1986 and the subsequent Whistleblower Protection Act of 1991.

      Government whistleblowers are no longer afforded the same measure of protection that they were before. Whistleblowers could actually go into court and request federal protection from US Marshals. They can't do that anymore.

      Also the creation of this agency with its vast new powers effectively guts the Freedom of Information Act. Since this agency is operating under essentially National Security law, as amended 1949-1950, and not regular Title Code 18 law, it can classify all of its operations and documents. It would be immune from any public request for information. Virtually all its budget is classified. It does not have to submit any public accounting for the money it spends - not even to the General Accounting Office. This is part of the power it will have as a super extra-legal extra-constitutional body. The only submission to GAO that is required will be total receipts and total expenditures -- what all agencies have to give the GAO even under classified spending, but they don't have to break that spending down at all.

      Furthermore (they are preparing the public for this), Bush knows there will be many Supreme Court challenges when we are past this "first blush of patriotism." When the American people have taken off their rose-colored glasses and only have their normal blinders on, there will be many proceedings in the Supreme Court over the authority being given this agency. That's why Bush is saying that this ruling council, this Supreme National Security Council, has decided that its only judicial accountability will be with the National Security Court in Washington DC, a court which the administration controls.

      What does this do? It not only suspends habeas corpus, but it does so on a virtually unlimited basis. Even during the Civil War, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, there were still some rules. For example, you could not hold somebody for more than 90 days without charge. With this new agency, not only do they act ex post facto vis-a-vis habeas corpus, but there aren't any limits being imposed. They could literally detain people for years - for as long as they wanted. There is no limitation. When people talk about the suspension of habeas corpus, they talk about when Lincoln did it during the Civil War, or when Franklin Roosevelt did it on a limited basis during the Second World War.

      Ridge has already said that they have the authority to hold people indefinitely. In wartime suspension of habeas corpus, there are still rules. This is not a simple suspension of habeas corpus, but it is in effect an elimination of it. The power is granted to the Office of Homeland Security by default because it is immune from judicial review.

      Likewise, there is a complete suspension of Fourth Amendment privilege of unwarranted search and seizure. For the first time ever, a US agency is given the power to seize assets without judicial proceeding or review. In other words, the people whose assets are seized have no recourse. They are being given no recourses under the law. This agency doesn't have to claim anything. Since they are immune from judicial review, they don't even have to come up with a reason. All they have to say is that, "pursuant to the security of the State, we believe these assets may be used by those who would represent a threat to the security of the State or the domestic tranquility of the people."

      Technically the assets of any person or news agency which would attempt to disseminate the truth to the people could be seized --- since under the National Security Act, the truth about government operations can be withheld from the people if the dissemination of said truths is deemed to be injurious to the security of the State or the domestic tranquility of the people.

      In other words, if you don't tell the truth to the people, their tranquility will be assured.

      Detainees or targets of the new State Security bureau (Office of Homeland Security) will no longer have the right of Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

      In other words, they can be compelled to talk by "any means necessary," i.e., torture, interrogation, etc. Section 409C of the National Security Act, pursuant to the political and state security acts thereunto, states that a person whom the government believes is involved in an act contrary to the security of the State can be compelled by whatever measures necessary to reveal information.

      Furthermore this State Security agency will be given the old FBI power under the 1942 Seditious Publication Act. This power, formally given to the FBI in the past, was done away with in 1972, when J. Edgar Hoover died -- because he so abused this power. The power of this Act will be given to this new State Security. It will give this agency the ability to label publications as "seditious" and to prevent their publication and transmission thereunto by both print and electronic means.

      Previously there was the United States Title Code Statutes 792/793, otherwise known as the "Sedition Acts of 1798," which came right after the Logan Amendments of 1794. Since the times of George Washington, "sedition acts" have not been used. And now we are talking about the revival of the Seditious Publication Acts of 1942, which I find particularly sinister, because it gives our new super State Security agency the power to label publications seditious to prevent their transmission and to prevent their printing. That means they can be prevented from being mailed or being disseminated electronically or otherwise, a power which will undoubtedly be used by the new Office of Cyber Space Security. In fact, even the truth regarding government activities or operation can be deemed seditious and its dissemination to the public prevented.

      In the past, when the government went on a tear to deny the people's rights, even Life Magazine from 1968 to 1972 was formally declared a "seditious publication" by the FBI because of its photo expose' of the horrors of Vietnam. They were showing a lot of dead and twisted American bodies. The FBI considered this "anti-patriotic" and "seditious" because it was fomenting unrest and thus aiding those who didn't want to see US involvement in the war.

      So far there has been absolutely no congressional or judicial opposition to this. Public opinion polls state that the American people are willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary in the so-called "New War Against Terrorism." Of course, what they're not saying is that the Bush Administration very craftily says to the people that we need this power to detain terrorists, to freeze assets of terrorists, and to hold terrorists ex post facto of habeas corpus. What they're not seeing is that in the actual authorization bills, obviously the word "terrorist" is not used. The word "suspect" or "detainee" is used. Of course, it's very doubtful that all suspects or detainees will be limited to those who wear turbans. A "suspect" or a "detainee" can mean anything.

      This means that there will be unlimited and virtually unfettered electronic surveillance and eavesdropping. This will include the unfettered ability to surveil on American people and to intercept communications. The only lip service paid to this is that finally George Bush made the comment that " we will not diminish the hard-won rights and liberties of the American people" which, of course is precisely what he is setting about doing.

      If all bills and measures currently proposed pass, the financial cost to the American people (an increase in federal spending) will be $343 billion over the next three-year period. The airline bailout measure. Increases in direct foreign grants. Increase in rescheduling Russian debt again. Enormous increases in domestic building programs.

      And where is the money coming from? There are no "surpluses." The "surpluses" are gone. All of this money will be 100% deficit financed and because the Bush Administration has abandoned its traditional strong dollar policy, this will build a powerful inflationary whammy into our economy. We will feel the effects of this down the road.

      These two measures - a massive increase in deficit financing along with abandoning a strong dollar policy, which contains inflation - will produce a huge inflationary wallop in a few years.

      There are many appropriation bills now in Congress, and everybody is tacking on something because this is pork-barrel heaven. Because the public doesn't care, everybody in Congress and their brother is tacking on an extra $10 million for some little pet project.

      Note the foolishness of the liberal Democrats, who, in an effort to get brownie points in the "first blush of patriotism," are jumping on the band wagon of restricting Americans' civil liberties - a la Senator John Kerry's bill for interstate transportation security. If that bill passes, we will, for the very first time in this country, have interstate checkpoints for public transportation. We didn't even have that during the war.

      There may be many a "conspiracy theorist" that has been a lone voice in the wilderness who may be vindicated. Although it has not been announced yet, a further diminishment of Americans' rights to keep and bear arms is certainly coming. The Bush Administration hasn't gone that far yet because it would virtually be a killer for them to say that now. As long as Bush has an 80% approval rating and as long as 80% of the American people approve these so-called "security" measures, Bush, who has a large gun-owning constituency, will be able to get away with it - further restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.

      There's something called the "Old 80-80." If you're a president of the United States and you have an 80% approval rating, and you have initiated a policy under a crisis (even if it is your administration which has maintained the level of fear) that has an 80% approval rating, then you can propose legislation that is directly contrary to the belief of your constituency and yet it won't hurt you politically - or it won't hurt you enough to make any difference when you run for reelection.

      A historical precedent was the time when Nixon imposed wage and price controls in 1971. Nixon's constituency, primarily the wealthy, Big Business, and major corporations, were vehemently opposed to price controls, yet he imposed them anyway under the "fight to contain the collapse of the American dollar" after he closed the gold window. Then they came up with the policy of dramatically increasing the price of crude oil and the US dollar just fell out of bed. The 1971 dollar crisis reached its peak when the French central bank refused to accept US dollars. If you create enough of a crisis situation, even the people who will be hurt by a change in the law will support it.

      Now we need to ask -- do we want to travel down the "Canadian Road"? Are we so certain we want to support National Identification Cards? Are we so certain that, like our Canadian cousins, we are prepared to become a homogenized, pasteurized, wimpified, and neuterized society?

      Do we want to become like Canada, the original home of sado-masochism, where the clarion call of the neutered and impotent Canadian people to their government is -- "Whip me. Beat me. Tax me some more. Because I just love paying five dollars for a package of cigarettes, or $68 for a $28 bottle of Canadian Club whiskey. And while you're at it -- take away my right to own a firearm"?

      If we, as the quintessential American couch potatoes with our rose-colored glasses, eyes glazed over from hour after hour of mind-numbing sitcoms, whose only awareness of the news comes from compressed sound bites and encapsulated print bullets, succumb to this, then we will most certainly find ourselves robbed of our hard won rights and liberties.

      All of the legislation proposed since September 12 -- if it is to pass -- will constitute the largest transfer of the rights and liberties of the American people back to the government in the history of the Republic.

      What of all the wars that we have fought -- the millions of us who have shed our blood to maintain our rights and liberties as American citizens?

      What do we say - that these sacrifices were in vain?

      For that is precisely what we will be saying -- if we continue to keep our heads stuck in the sand and say nothing in this hour of when our rights and liberties are in the greatest peril

      AL MARTIN is America's foremost whistleblower on government fraud and corruption. A retired US Navy Lt. Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, he has testified before Congress (the Kerry Committee and the Alexander Committee) regarding Iran-Contra. Al Martin is the author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" (2001, National Liberty Press, $19.95; Toll FREE order line: 1-866-317-1390) He lives at an undisclosed location, since the criminals named in his book have been returned to national power and prominence. His column "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway" is published regularly on Al Martin Raw: Criminal Govt Conspiracy (http://www.almartinraw.com)