the rising police state - the new american magazine oct-7-2002

SPECIAL ISSUE • SPECIAL ISSUE • SPECIAL ISSUE October 7. 2002

Vol. 18. No . 20 • $2 . 95

V is it www.thenewamerican.com

Vol. 18, No. 20 new American October 7, 2002

TERRORISM .,"'!III

4 The Action Is in the Reaction by William F. jasper - The terrOlist leaders and their sponsors are providing the pretext for the U.S. government to institute police-state measures.

9 A No-Win War Without End? by William F. jasper - By embracing state sponsors of terrorism like Russia and China, our leaders ensure that the "war on terror" will never end in conclusive victory.

ON THE HOME FRONT

12 From Law to Lawlessness by William Norman Grigg - The Bush administration is laying the foundation for tyranny by putting itself above the law.

19 Foundations of the Garrison State by Steve Bonta - The proposed Department of Homeland Security is based on an elitist blueprint finished and on the President's desk before Black 1Uesday.

23 Militarizing Mayberry by William Norman Grigg - State and local police agencies are being transformed into paramilitary affiliates of a centralized police force controlled by Washington, D.C.

25 Their Target: Your Guns by Thomas R. Eddlem - It would be insane to disarm law-abiding citizens. Yet this is what the UN seeks - and the Bush adntinistration is quietly acquiescing.

28 TIPping Off Big Brother by Steve Bonta - If the Bush administration's citizen informant program "TIPS" is fully implemented, America may end up a nation of tattletales and civilian spies that would make Big Brother proud.

WORLD GOVERNMENT

31 Toward a Global Police State by john F. McManus - Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. government has been implementing a decades-old strategy to make the UN the most powerful force on Earth.

Never again! Those responsible for 9-11 must be brought to justice, and America must be defended. But if we restrict freedom to combat terrorism, the terrorists and their sponsors will have won.

IN LIGHT OF THE PAST

34 From Republic to Reich by William Norman Grigg - Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime exploited a terrorist assault on the Reichstag Building to carry out a pre-positioned strategy to convert the Weimar Republic into a police state.

FREEDOM FIGHT

41 JBS: Defending the Rule of Law by G. Vance Smith - The John Birch Society uniquely understands the globalist conspiracy and how to win the battle to preserve freedom.

44 What Can Be Done by William F. jasper - The answer to terrorism lies not in granting Gestapo-like police powers to the federal government but in restoring legitimate internal security measures.

COVER Design: Joseph w. Kelly; Photos: ArtToday, FEMA

Publisher John F. McManus

Associate Publisher Thomas G. Gow

Editor Gary Benoit

Managing Editor Paul N. Smith

Senior Editors William F. Jasper

William Norman Grigg

Contributing Editor Steve Bonta

Editorial Assistant Jennifer A. Gritt

Contributors Dennis J. Behreandt

Hilaire du Berrier Samuel L. Blumenfeld

Thomas R. Eddlem G. Edward Griffin William P. Hoar

Jane H. Ingraham Robert W Lee

Charles E. Rice Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Fr. James Thornton

Art Director Scott J. Alberts

Desktop Publishing Specialist Steven J. DuBord

Marketing Thomas Burzynski

Charene A. Boushley

Web Manager Brian Witt

Advertising/Circulation Julie DuFrane, Mgr.

Joy Huttenburg, Asst. Mgr.

Research Larry Greenley, Dir.

Brian T. Farmer David Spilker

Hew American Printed in the U.S.A . • ISSN 0885-6540

P.O. Box 8040 • Appleton, WI 54912 920-749-3784 · 920-749-3785 (fax)

www.thenewamerican.com

Rates are $39 per year (Hawaii and Canada, add $9; foreign, add $27) or $22 for six months (Hawaii and Canada, add $4.50; foreign , add $13.50). Copyright ©2002 by American Opinion Publishing, Inc. Periodicals postage paid at Appleton, WI and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send any address changes to THE NEW AMERICAN, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912.

THE NEW AMERICAN is published biweekly by American Opinion Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subSidiary of The John Birch SOciety. For more information about The John Birch Society, see www.jbs.org.

THE NEW AMERICAN • OCTOBER 7, 2002

Could Osama bin Laden (if he is still alive) ever hope to conquer the

United States? How about Saddam Hussein? How about all of the world's terrorists and terrorist sponsors combined? Of course not! America is too powerful, and the American people love their country too much, to allow a foreign invader to defile our soil-

Is there a foreign enemy that could bring our beloved country to its knees? China perhaps? Or Russia? Never! At least, that was the assessment of Abraham Lincoln, who lived during a time when America's military prowess, as compared to the rest of the world, was not nearly so great as it is today_ "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow?" Lincoln asked rhetorically in an 1838 speech. "Never! - All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years."

Method in the Madness According to President Bush, the terrorist enemy that struck us on September 11th did not understand America. "They didn' t understand that when you attack America and you murder innocent people, we're coming after you with full force and fury_ .. ," he said on January 24th of this year. "They didn ' t understand our fiber, our character, our values." The following day he opined that "when the enemy hit us, they must have not known what they were doing."

In reality, the enemy knows exactly what it is doing and has (thus far) gotten the reaction it expected. One of our ene

mies, terrorist leader

FROM THE EDITOR

bin Laden, made this abundantly clear when he boasted after the 9-11 attacks: "[T]he battle has moved to inside America .... I tell you, freedom and human rights in America

"are doomed. The U.S. Government will lead the American people - and the West in general - into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

Senior Editor William F. Jasper uses this telling quote to begin his article "The Action Is in the Reaction" (page four). Therein he explains that the terrorist masterminds hope to beguile Americans into saclificing freedom for security. He also shows that bin Laden's alQaeda is simply a spoke in an "axis of evil" that includes not only Iran, Iraq, and North Korea but some of our supposed allies in the war on terrorism such as Russia, Syria, and China.

Other articles in this issue show how America is moving toward a police state by design - with powers concentrated not only in Washington but (eventually) in an emerging world government under the United Nations.

The Choice Is Ours Lincoln, in the same speech quoted above, also asked: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us . It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Will America "die by suicide"? If she does , the terrorists and their sponsors will have won. Fortunately, America's fate is in our hands. We can maintain both freedom and security by becoming informed and involved. To learn how, please read the last two articles in this issue (pages 41 and 44) . •

- GARY BENOIT

EXTRA COPIES AVAILABLE • Additional copies of this issue of THE NEW AMERICAN are available at quantity-discount prices. To order, visit www.thenew american .com/marketplace/ or call 1-800-727 -TRUE.

3

TERRORISM

The Action Is in the Reaction The terrorist leaders and their sponsors are providing the pretext for the u.s. government to institute pOlice-state measures.

by William F. Jasper

[TJhe battle has moved to inside America ... . f tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. Government will lead the American people - and the West in general - into an unbearable hell and a choking life.

- Osama bin Laden BBC taped video interview after 9-11

I n his videotape message cited above, recorded several weeks after the September 11 th attacks, Osama bin Laden

was obviously pleased over the expectation ~

that the terrorist acts would provoke the U.S. ~

government to implement repressive mea- ~ sures. He was hopeful that the repression ~

w would progress to full-blown totalitarian- ~

ism, making America "an unbearable hell." "8 Bin Laden's remarks are extremely re- CD

~ vealing; they are a textbook restatement of -g

<{

the Marxist-Leninist doctrine spouted by Hidden strategy behind the terror: The 9-11 attacks struck a devastati ng blow against America. terrorists worldwide for the past several But rather than taking rational measures to protect the U.S. from future terrorist attacks, the Bush decades. administration is playing into the hands of the terrorists by imposing police-state measures.

They sound as if they came right out of the Mini-Manualfor Urban Guerrillas, authored by Brazilian Communist Carlos MarigheUa in 1969. Translated into many languages and used as a standard handbook for terrorists worldwide, it teaches that the urban guerrilla "must use revolutionary violence" to wreak havoc on the public order. Marighella continues:

4

Then, the government has no alternative except to intensify repression. The police roundups, house searches, arrests of innocent people make life in the city unbearable .. ..

Rejecting the "so-called political solution," the urban guerrilla must become more aggressive and violent, resorting without letup to sabotage, terrorism, expropnatIOns, assaults, kidnappings, and executions, heightening the disastrous situation in which the government must act.. ..

In other words, a key element of the terrorist plan is to provoke the government to implement oppressive police-state measures, to destroy constitutional restrictions on government power. Note that in this scheme it is government that primarily benefits from terrorism. It is the people who lose, as they are entrapped between the violence of terrorists (pressure from below) and the expanded powers of government (pressure from above).

Origins of Terror Uruguay's Communist Tupamaros were the first terrorist group to put Marighella's formula to work, with amazing success. Their terror spree of 1970-72 pushed Uruguay into a military dictatorship before the end of 1972. The Tupamaros became the model for the Weather Underground in the U.S., the Red Army Fraction in Germany,

the Red Brigades in Italy, and terrorist groups throughout Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.

One of the major promoters of the Marighella-Tupamaro thesis was millionaire Italian Communist Giangiacomo Feltrinelli , a close friend of Fidel Castro, the PLO, and the Soviet bloc countries. Heir to an immense fortune, Feltrinelli bankrolled and organized much of Europe's terrorist underground. He also published Marighella's Mini-Manual. Feltrinelli exhorted his revolutionary comrades to engage in "intensive provocation," to "violate the law openly . .. challenging and outraging institutions and public order in every way." This meant even random ki lling of innocent victims, such as "striking indiscriminately at passengers on a train, etc." These actions would open "an advanced phase of the struggle" by provoking "an


authoritarian turn to the right" - which, in the Marxist dialectic refers to the inflicting of harsh police-state measures on the people by the government. Feltrinelli's terrorist cadres nearly pushed the Italian government to adopt totalitarian measures like Uruguay's.

In a slight variation on Feltrinelli's instructions, the terrorist hijackers of September 11 th were "striking indiscriminately at passengers" on a plane, rather than a train. The purpose was the same: Provoke America's destruction from within by causing the government to overreact. Seen in this light, the 9-11 attacks are not at all "senseless," as so many commentators have described them. Vicious, yes. Evil, yes. But they make perfect , murderous sense to the terrorists who committed them, and the masterminds who set them in motion.

the billions. The Black Tuesday hijackers

were following in the bloody footsteps of Vladimir I. Lenin, the prophet of modern terrorism who launched propaganda by deed on an apocalyptic scale. In 1918, as the first dictator of the 'Soviet Union, Lenin introduced the concept of "mass terror" as formal communist strategy. Inspired by the ferocity of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, he de-

A key element of the terrorist plan is to provoke the government to implement oppressive pOlice-state measures . In this scheme it is the people who lose , as they are entrapped between the violence of terrorists and the expanded powers of government.

clared: "we can achieve nothing unless we use terror." He further advised: "The energy and mass nature of the terror must be

Cheka official Martyn Latsis explained in the December 25, 1918 issue of Pravda that "during investigations one need not

look for evidence or proof of what the accused said or did against Soviet authority. The first question you must put to him is this: What are his origins and upbringing, his education and occupation? These issues must determine the fate of the accused. This is the meaning and essence of Red Terror."

The Marighella-Feltrinelli "intensive provocation" strategy is rooted in an even older revolutionary legacy. The shocking images of hijacked jetliners slamming into the World Trade Center exemplify what terrorists refer to as "propaganda by deed" or "the propaganda of the deed." Credited with coining the term, Italian anarchist-socialist Errico Malatesta declared in 1876 that his Italian federation "believes that the insurrectional fact, destined to affirm sociali st principles by deed, is the most efficacious means of propaganda." Meaning very simply that a single violent act accomplishes far more than speeches, pamphlets, and peaceful demonstrations. Following this coldblooded logic, the anarchists launched a stunning succession of bombings and assassinations across Europe.

The 9-11 terrorists used the modern technology of commercial aviation and the mass media's global reach to carry "propaganda

Leninist Muslim: Osama bin Laden , leader of al-Qaeda, is the accused mastermind of the 9-11 terror attacks on America. Several years ago, al-Qaeda merged with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which had fused Marxism with Islam. Jeremy Glick, who phoned his wife from the doomed Flight 93, said the hijackers were wearing red headbands, a trademark of Islamic Jihad -and of Communism, not Islam.

The Red Terror launched by Lenin and sustained by Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and other Communist dictators had, by 1986, bathed our planet in the blood of more than 120 million victims, according to the research of Professor R. J. Rummel. In the 1960s, the Moscow strategists launched a new vehicle for terror: a global network of seemingly independent organizations carrying out a worldwide campaign of terror. Germany 's Red Army Fraction, Italy 's Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Sandinista National Liberation Front, and dozens of other groups from every part of the Free World received training, arms, explosives, and other critical assistance from Russia, China, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc countries. Terrorist train-

by deed" to a fiendish new level. Their murderous acts have achieved maximum propaganda impact; the riveting video images of the 9-11 deeds have been played and replayed many thousands of times, reaching a repeat audience numbering in


encouraged." To carry out his demonic vision he organized the Cheka (predecessor to the KGB and the current Russian FSB) under the leadership of Feliks Dzerzhinsky. "We stand for organized terror," Dzerzhinsky proudly declared.

ing camps were established in Russia, North Korea, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere. The era of terror was spawned.

Although the 9-11 hijackers have been

5

TERRORISM

Our new "ally" in the war on terror, Russia , is now, as was the Soviet Union previously, the principal sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. government is

HizbAllah International, the global collaborative terror apparatus launched at the 1996 Tehran terror summit.

But although bin Laden is a well known player in the terror network, he. is not the chief player, and' "the network of which he is a part is not rooted in Islamic fundamentalism. Sitting in ultimate authority over

focusing on relatively minor tentacles like bin Laden 's al-Qaeda while ignoring the head of the terror octopus.

universally referred to as "Islamic fundamentalists," they quite obviously are following the Communist program. There is another very important piece of evidence in this regard that the media, government officials, and so-called experts have almost totally ignored. According to the description provided by Jeremy Glick, one of the citizen heroes of Flight 93 believed to have taken on the terrorists, the 9-11 hijackers may have been members of the Islamic Jihad, backed by Syria, Iran, and Russia. Mr. Glick managed to call his wife from the plane and told her it had been commandeered by "three Arab-looking men with red headbands." Red headbands? That is a trademark of Islamic Jihad. Like many of the so-called "Muslim extremist" groups, they are more "red" (Marxist-Leninist) than "green" (Islamic fundamentalist).

The federal government itself has provided additional reason to believe that Islamic Jihad terrorists were involved in the attacks. According to documents introduced by federal prosecutors in the 1998 Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombing cases, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden 's al-Qaeda effectively merged several years ago.

Along these same lines, it is important to note that bin Laden and members of his al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad have joined the hardcore Communist atheists such as George Habash, Abu Nidal, and Ahmed Jabril at global ter- "0

ror summits in Tehran, Damascus, and ~ OJ "0

~ <i

the Committee of Three is Dr. Mahdi Chamran Savehi, Iran's

chief of External Intelligence and supervisor of its global terror operations. Mahdi Chamran and his brother Mustafa were both educated in the United States. Active in radical-left politics in the 1960s in California, they established a Marxist front known as the Muslim Students ' Association of America and an Iranian terrorist organization called Red Shiism. The Chamran brothers, like many other MarxistLeninists, adopted the rhetoric and symbols of Islam to spread the Communist message to a larger, unsuspecting audience, in the same way that Marxist-Leninists in Europe and the Americas co-opted the symbols and language of Christianity

to promote Communism as " liberation theology" among Christians. Mahdi Chamran continues to work closely with Russian intelligence, as he did during the Soviet era.

Terrorism: A State Enterprise What is most important to keep in mind from the foregoing is that the terrorist threat facing us now is undeniably a continuation of the global Soviet terror network of earlier decades. The U.S. government and other Western governments are running from an inconvenient truth : Their new "ally" in the war on terror, Russia, is now, as was the Soviet Union previously, the principal sponsor of terrorism in the world. They focus on the relatively minor tentacles like bin Laden's al -Qaeda while ignoring the head of the terror octopus.

What emerged from the mountains of evidence concerning the terror decades of the 1960s, '70s, and' 80s is this critical understanding: The modern phenomenon of international terrorism was only possible on the scale at which it was occurring because of state sponsorship. Without support provided by the Communist bloc na-

Khartoum. Even more telling is evidence produced by the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare indicating that bin Laden is one of the three members of the Committee of Three overseeing

UN·backed fanatics: Hundreds of Hezbollah activists, wearing headbands that read , "We are Coming," raise their hands in a Hitlerite salute during a February 15, 2002 rally in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. Currently sitting on the UN Security Council , Syria backs Hezbollah , Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and many other terrorist groups. The UN allows the Hezbollah flag to fly over its facilities in Lebanon.

6 THE NEW AMERICAN • OCTOBER 7, 2002

tions the motley international terrorist bands would pose no major threat.

The U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, in a 1985 report entitled State-Sponsored Terrorism, observed: "The prevailing tendency has been to view each terrorist act as an individual incident without political pattern or strategic dimension. This attitude is naiVe in view of the accumulating evidence of collusion among states sponsoring violence against pluralist democracies, particularly the United States and its allies."

And the Soviet Union was undoubtedly the principal sponsoring state. As Dr. Hans Josef Horchem, head of West Germany's anti-terrorist Office for the Defense of the Constitution, noted in 1979: "The KGB is engineering international terrorism. The facts can be proven, documented, and are well known to the international Western intelligence community."

Our noble "ally," Afghan leader Hamid Karzai , with first lady Laura Bush at his side (right), is acknowledged by President Bush during his January 29, 2002 State of the Union address. Tightly connected to the terrorist state of Iran , Karzai has been to Tehran since the 9-11 attacks and has welcomed Iran's terror chief Mohammad Khatami to Afghanistan.

In 1964, the Soviet Politburo decided to increase spending on its fledgling terrorist networks by one thousand percent. The year 1967 marked another leap forward. "Shortly after Yuri Andropov became head of state security in May 1967," notes the aforementioned Senate report, "Moscow adopted a policy of supplying training, arms, and ammunition in generous quantity to Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under Yasser Arafat. The PLO, with this kind of encouragement and support, has reached out in all directions against U.S. 'imperialist forces.' "

Many of the graduates of the Soviet terror camps of the 1960s, '70s, and '80sfrom the PLO, PFLP, IRA, etc. - are presently training and guiding the terrorist groups currently making the headlines. The newer actors on the block - alQaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf - depend on the same state sponsors who supported and sheltered the earlier cadres: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba - and, ultimately, Russia and China.

In a news conference on October 11, 200 I , Bush characterized the new global conflict as "a war against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against those governments that support or shelter them." (Emphasis added) . He hit this theme again in his address before the Unit-


ed Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002, stating: "And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime upplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale."

The problem is that all of the most culpable "outlaw regimes" were represented right there in the UN General Assemblyand the president has partnered us with some of them in the war on terror. In his UN speech, President Bush repeatedly singled out Iraq's role in international terror and warned of Saddam Hussein's plans for developing "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). The fact is, however, that it is our new "partner" Vladimir Putin who is supplying Iraq with the WMD technology, which is a continuation of the MoscowBaghdad relationship extending back four decades. Putin has recently concluded a $40 billion agreement with Saddam Hussein. Russian military advisers and scientists have always figured prominently in Saddam's totalitarian state, and have been especially critical for his WMD programs.

Our Anti-terror Posse Near the start of his January 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush motioned toward the tall, bearded man seated

in a place of honor next to Mrs. Bush. "And this evening," said the president, "we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan : Chairman Hamid Karzai." But Mr. Karzai, whom the Bush administration installed in power, was, and is, closely allied to Iran, a member of the Bush-designated "axis of evil." Iran 's state-run Tehran Times reported on January 3, 2002 that Karzai had met the previous day with Iranian minister Mohsen Aminzadeh and had said: "We want to see our Iranian brothers involved in every aspect of the reconstruction of Afghanistan." That has happened; the Northern Alliance terrorists who have come into the government with Karzai have close ties to Iran and Russia. On February 24th, Karzai journeyed to Tehran to meet with "reform" terror chief Mohammad Khatarni. "Our presence here is like going to your brother's house, because Iran is our brother country," Karzai said.

Meanwhile, Russia is busy in Iran expanding the $800 million nuclear facility it has been constructing for that terror regime in the city of Bushehr. In July, Russia released information about its new 10-year program to expand scientific and military cooperation with Iran. That program includes plans to build as many as five

7

u

~ Q) u

~ «

TERRORISM

Plans for a war on terrorism and a Homeland Security Department were scripted in CFR position papers long before 9-11. While America must fight terrorism resolutely, the Bush-CFR plan ultimately would extinguish the very liberty it purports to defend.

State Sponsored Terrorism, provides an English translation of the "TOP SECRET" minutes of that meeting. It leaves no doubt that Khatami, whom our media contin-ue to falsely portray as a "moderate" and a "reformer," was building a truly forriUdable terror apparatus . And the world has witnessed its handiwork for the past decade and a half.

more nuclear power reactors . It also undoubtedly includes plans to enhance weapons programs such as Iran 's ballistic missile program, which Russia built in violation of an international convention it had signed known as the Missile Technology Control Regime. Russia 's enormous assistance has enabled the Tehran regime to continue as the main sponsor of the ultra-violent Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, which have set up shop well beyond the confines of the Middle East in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the United States.

Note that in 1984 Iran 's current president, Mohammad Khatami , presided over a secret meeting in Tehran to create an international terror brigade that would be provided with vast economic and technological resources. The U.S. Senate's report,

8

Like Iraq and Libya, Syria is a Marxist, tyrannical regime that has adopted an Islamic veneer in recent years. And, like Iraq, Libya, and Iran, it has a vigorous WMD program - being constructed with the assistance of Russia, China, and North Korea. It was Syrian-backed Hezbollah terrorists who carried out the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy, U.S. Marine barracks, and U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut during the 1980s, killing hundreds of Americans . In 1982, Syrian dictator Hafez ai-Assad brutally slaughtered 20,000 of his own people in the city of Hama. During the same period, his troops and terrorists murdered thousands of Lebanese and turned the previous-

Iy beautiful and prosperous Lebanon into rubble.

Terrorist organizations with actual bases of operation inside Syria or Syrian-occupied Lebanon include Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many others. Be-

.'

Terror rehabilitated: "We stand for organized terror," declared Feliks Dzerzhinsky, who headed Lenin 's dreaded secret police, the Cheka, forerunner of the KGB . For decades a giant 14-ton statue of the terror chief glared down at Russians from Lubyanka Square, headquarters of the KGB in central Moscow. Thousands of demonstrators cheered when the hated symbol was toppled in 1991 (left). But the statue was not destroyed; it stands in a museum backyard in Moscow (above). The New York Times reported on September 17th that Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, plans to reinstall the statue at its former site. With KGB veteran Vladimir Putin serving as Russia's president and assisting terror regimes around the world , that is a very foreboding omen.

AP/Wide World photos


sides directly and indirectly supporting these groups, Syria has used its own intelligence organizations to carry out terrorist bombings and assassinations. Yet the Bush administration now regards Syria as an ally against terror.

President Bush's speeches and policies on terrorism are self-contradictory, schizophrenic, and dangerous. They have made us partners with the world's worst tetTorists, ostensibly to fig ht terrorism. And in his rush to establish a Homeland Security Department, he would demolish our system of checks and balances, sweep away our constitutional separation of powers, and create an enormous police-state apparatus. What can Mr. Bush have in mind with thjs misbegotten and dangerous crusade? Former Senator Gary Hart offers a clue.

Commenting on the Black Tuesday attacks during a September 14, 2001 meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Hart stated: "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use thjs disaster to carry out what his father - a phrase his father used I think only once, and it hasn't been used since - and that is a new world order." The global power elite attending the CFR program knew what the senator meant and, doubtless, heartily agreed with him. According to former CFR member Admiral Chester Ward, the CFR goal of a "new world order" entails "submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government" under the U . Hundreds of internationalists from the CFR permeate President Bush's cabinet and entire administration. And as another article in this special issue shows (see page 19), plans for a global war on terrorism and a massive Homeland Security Department were scripted in CFR position papers long before the hijacked planes of 9-11 slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. Yes, America must fight terrorism with resolute action and unyielding determination, but the BushCFR plan ultimately would extinguish the very liberty it purports to defend. That is something the terrorists themselves could never directly succeed in doing . •


TERRORISM

A No-Win War Without End? '

.'. By embracing state sponsors of terrorism like Russia and China, our leaders ensure that the "war on terror" will never end in conclusive victory.

Uniting with terrorists: Presidents Vladimir Putin, George Bush, and Jiang Zemin at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Shanghai , October 21 , 2001 . President Bush has called for "a war against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against those governments that support or shelter them." Russia and China are the two biggest exporters and supporters.

by William F. Jasper

America has also accepted a great challenge in the world; to wage a relentless and systematic campaign against global terror. ... We are in for a long and difficult war. It will be conducted on many fronts. But as long as it takes, we will prevail.

- President George W. Bush April 30, 2002

I n the same April 30th speech in San Jose, California, cited above, President Bush pointed to the early successes in

Afghanistan and pledged that "in every cave, in every dark corner of that country, we will hunt down the killers and bring

them to justice." Then, throwing down the rhetorical gauntlet to the terrorists and their state sponsors, he repeated a line he had used before: "Across the world, governments have heard this message: you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Like many of his similar calls to arms since the 9-11 terrorist attacks on America, this expression of resolute determination resonated with his audience and was greeted with vigorous applause. Americans want the perpetrators of these heinous crimes brought to justice - dead or alive. It is both a matter of justice and national security that we follow through on this commitment, for those allowed to escape will, almost assuredly, strike again.

But is the Bush administration waging

9

the kind of war on terror that will bring the 9-11 terrorists to justice and destroy the global terror networks at war with America? Unfortunately, it is not. In fact, the current U.S. "war on terror" is on course to become another "no-win" war like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on inflation, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and other failed crusades of previous administrations. The consequences offailure in this case, however, could prove far more catastrophic, both in terms of loss of lives and loss of liberty.

We must not close our eyes to the plain truth in so grave a matter. It is utterly impossible for us to win the war on terror as it currently is being waged. The facts are clear; the president has:

Recruited a posse including the worst ter ror ist state sponsors. The coalition of "allies" President Bush put together includes Russia and China, who support the terrorist organizations through surrogate states, while continuing to build weapons of mass destruction for Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Libya. This is absurd; it is the equivalent of declaring war on organized crime and then inviting the mafia kingpins onto the Police Commission as allies and praising their assistance when they help arrest a few of their own low-level thugs or drug peddlers. Calamity is guaranteed from the start.

Committed our nation to an endless, undefined war. This is an open-ended, global conflict with no exit strategy and no clear definition of the objectives constituting victory. The president and administration officials have repeatedly stated that this war could go on for many years and range over the entire globe.

Centralized vast, unprecedented police powers in Washington. The consolidation of law enforcement powers following 9-11 presents an even greater threat to our constitutional order and liberty than any terrorist attack could. This is following the terrorist script, as explained in the article beginning on page four, by terrorist leaders Marighella, Feltrinelli, bin Laden, and others.

Weakened our borders. President Bush has continued the dangerous, out-of-control immigration policies of Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. He has even announced support for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would abolish the

10

Another UN outrage: Syrian Ambassador to the UN Mikhail Webhe (center) talks with ambassadors at the UN Security Council. Syria, a major sponsor of terrorism, was elected to a two-year membership on the Council by the terrorist-laden General Assembly following the 9-11 attacks.

borders (and border controls) between the U.S ., Mexico, and Canada - and then all of Latin America. Anyone who doubts that this is the intent need only look at the gradual submergence of European nations in the EU, the model for the FTAA.

Appointed the United Nations to head the posse. The United ations is not just a menagerie of misfits and kleptocrats, but a colossal Terrorists-R-Us. The UN General Assembly is loaded with terrorist state members such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, Russia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia, etc. And the Security Council, the most powerful branch of the UN, includes terrorist sponsors Russia and China as permanent members. President Bush has placed the "war on terror" under the aegis of this same terrorist-laden UN, and under the restrictions imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1373. Consider also:

• Within weeks after the 9-11 attacks, the UN voted to give terrorist state Syria a seat on the Security Council. (Syria was even president of the Security Council during June 2002.)

• In 2002, terrorist state Libya was placed on the UN Human Rights Commission.

• The UN chose as co-chairman for its 2000 Millennium Summit Sam Nujoma, Namibia's dictator and leader of the Communist terrorist group SWAPO.

• At the UN's 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg, Robert Mugabe, dictator of

terrorist state Zimbabwe received a cheering, standing ovation from delegates.

• The UN's 2001 Summit on Racism held in South Africa days before the 9-11 attacks turned into a giant hate-America conference featuring many of the top terrorist state leaders.

• Major General Paul Vallely, USA (retired), has recently provided eyewitness testimony and photographs showing UN personnel in Syrian-occupied Lebanon collaborating with Hezbollah terrorists and a UN facility flying the Hezbollah flag.

• Each of the UN's member terrorist states sends delegates to the U.S. with full diplomatic immunity. Many of these UN "diplomats" are intelligence agents, some with terror assignments.

• Two of Sudan 's agents, Siraj Yousef and Ahmed Yousef Muhammad, used their UN diplomatic cover to help plan the second New York Trade Center bombing conspiracy in 1993 (which was foiled). Their immunity protected them from arrest.

• Filiberto Ojeda Rios, an agent for Fidel Castro, masterminded a series of bombings throughout the U.S. by the Puerto Rican FALN, while enjoying diplomatic immunity at the Cuban UN Mission.

If not reversed, our present policies will lead to national suicide. Congress must be made to see the folly and peril of continuing this course. It must exercise its authority to protect the Constitution and implement genuine national security measures . •


ON THE HOME FRONT

From Law to Lawlessness Using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to eradicate constitutional safeguards, the Bush administration is laying the foundation for tyranny by putting itself above the law.

by William Norman Grigg

A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt's dramatization of the life and martyrdom of St. Thomas

More, timelessly illustrates the value of the rule of law. Serving as Lord Chancellor of England, More, a devout Catholic, provoked the wrath of Henry VIII by refusing to endorse the King 's claim that his authority transcended that of the Catholic Church. Condemned as a traitor, More was beheaded at the Tower of London on July 6, 1535. In Bolt's version of the story, More's betrayal occurred at the hands of Richard Rich, a petty, ambitious man who had sought employment from the Lord Chancellor. His request spurned, Rich took revenge by offering perjured testimony against More.

Shortly after Rich 's overture was rejected, More 's wife, knowing that Rich was a threat to her husband, turns

Who's the real enemy? A weary air traveler submits to a "wanding" administered by a federal transportation security worker at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Nearly all of the proposed counter-terrorism measures are directed at American citizens, the potential victims of terrorism.

to him and urges: "Arrest him!" "For what?" More inquires. "He's dangerous!" rejoins More's wife. William Roper, More 's son-in-law, agrees: "For all we know, that man 's a spy!" More's daughter joins the anxious chorus: "Father, that man 's bad!

When More points out that it's God's role to punish "bad" men who have not committed crimes, his exasperated wife exclaims, "While you talk, he's gone!" "And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!" More replies. "So, now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!" snorts Roper in disgust. "Yes!" admits More. "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" Roper impetuously responds, "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide . .. the laws all being flat?" More asks Roper. "This country is planted

12

thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's .. .. And if you cut them down ... do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit oflaw, for my own safety's sake."

Giving "the Devil benefit of law" is a principle deeply inscribed in the AngloSaxon legal tradition to which Americans are heirs. While it is true that laws exist to punish the guilty, the law's deeper purpose is to restrain the government. Freedom depends on the limitation of government by law. As British philosopher John Locke pointed out in his Second Treatise on Government (1694), slavery consists of being "subject to the incessant, uncertain, arbitrary will of another man," and that "absolute arbitrary power" is the practice of "governing without settled standing laws." Since the chief purpose of law, according to Locke, is to "preserve and enlarge freedom," it must protect the individual against

all criminal acts, including those of the government. When an individual's rights are violated, "the injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the crown or some petty villain." Nor can a majority of the citizenry sanction government to commit criminal acts, as "nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself."

From time immemorial, rulers of all varieties, pleading the purity of their own intentions, have insisted that they must be unshackled from the law to protect their subjects from "bad" men, whether foreign enemies or domestic criminals and subversives. But once such rulers succeed in clear-cutting the laws, they create a freefire zone in which they can make war on their own subjects with impunity. In this way the law becomes perverted. Instead of protecting the rights of the innocent, it becomes a means of protecting the power of the ruling elite.


In England prior to the 17th-century "Glorious Revolution," some English kings claimed the power to declare certain people "outlaws" without trial. But even the most presumptuous European monarch understood that there were limits to his authority. This is not true, however, of modern totalitarian dictators. Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin, the inventor of the modern totalitarian state, famously declared: "The scientific concept of dictatorship is nothing else but this - power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules." Where medieval monarchs would occasionally consign scores of individuals to the dungeons as "enemies of the realm," modern totalitarian dictatorships , beginning with Lenin's Soviet Union, have claimed the power to designate entire classes or races "enemies of the state," consigning them to prison camps or marking them for extermination.

Advocates of the total state often invoke the necessity of cutting down laws impeding the state's efforts to pursue its enemies, which are depicted in diabolical terms. But as Robert Bolt's Thomas More reminds us, those who cut down the laws in the name of "justice" are actually doing the devil's work. This is certainly true of the Bush administration's behavior in the "war on terrorism," as it rapidly mows down laws and constitutional protections obstructing the president's power to rule by decree - but only for the high-minded purpose of "homeland security," of course.


Devil's Due

Rulers of all varieties have insisted that they must be unshackled from the law to protect

An echo of Robert Bolt's Thomas More was heard during an August 13th District Court hearing in Virginia. U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar demanded that the Bush ad- .' ministration justify its open-ended detention of Yasser Esam Hamdi. Born in Louisiana, the Saudi national was captured in

their subjects. But once such rulers succeed in clear-cutting the laws, they can make war on their own subjects with impunity. Instead of protecting the innocent person's rights, the law is perverted to protect the ruling elite's power.

Afghanistan by U.S.-commanded forces, transported to Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo, Cuba, and then designated an "enemy combatant" after it was learned that he had been born in America. The Bush adrrnnistration insisted that once the president branded Hamdi an "enemy combatant," the administration could keep him imprisoned for as long as it pleases - without access to an attorney or judicial review of his case.

"The Constitution doesn ' t apply to Hamdi?" exclaimed Judge Doumar. Counsel for the Justice Department insisted that an unsworn, vaguely worded "declaration" submitted by a rrnnor Pentagon bureaucrat named Michael H. Mobbs offered adequate legal justification for Hamdi 's imprisonment without trial. "I do think that due process requires something other than a basic assertion by someone named Mobbs that they have looked at some pa-

~ ~ u.:

~ ~~:"-.-.J ~

Garrison state preview: "Urban warfare" training exercises foreshadow the possible domestic use of the U.S. military as a militarized internal security force. Administration officials, congressional leaders, and pundits are now discussing repeal or modification of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids such use of our armed forces within our borders.

13

ON THE HOME FRONT

As Robert Bolt's Thomas More reminds us, those who cut down the laws in the name of "justice" are actually doing the devil's work. This is true of the Bush administration's behavior in the "war on terrorism ," as it rapidly mows down laws and constitutional protections - but only for the purpose of "homeland security," of course.

pers and therefore they have determined he should be held incommunicado," commented Judge Doumar. "Just think of the impact of that. Is this what we're fighting for?" The judge referred to the Bush administration's claim as "the most interesting precedent ... in Anglo-American jurisprudence since the days of the Star Chamber" - a notorious tribunal operated by British kings to punish their political enemies.

Padilla is unmistakably a "bad man." But the Bush administration has failed to produce a molecule of evidence that he was actually plotting a terrorist attack. Under Secretary of Defense Paul 'Wolfowitz has admitted, "I don ' t think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk .... " An August 13th As-

Why should we care? Isn ' t it enough that Hamdi, Padilla, and Lindh chose to associate with anti-American Islamic radicals? Though difficult to understand, we must give such devilish characters the benefit of law for our own protection. The Bush admimstration is using the Hamdi and Padilla cases as the foundation for a legal revolution that would dispense entirely with many of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and immunities - particularly the Habeas Corpus guarantee, the

"Great Writ" prohibiting indefinite incarceration without trial.

Commenting on the Hamdi case, a "senior Bush administration official" told the August 8th Wall Street Journal, "There's a different legal regime we're developing" in the so-called war on terrorism. The Journal observes that the new regime contemplated by the administration would blend "the once-separate realms of civilian law and the law of war. Criminal law determines gUilt and assigns punishment for past wrongdoing, but the law of war gives governments vast powers to prevent possible harm by imprisoning and interrogating enemy soldiers."

Admittedly, Hamdi seems a very unsavory figure. But the Bush administration has not accused him of helping to plan or carry out the Black Tuesday terrorist attacks. No evidence has been presented that he had prior knowledge of that attack, or that he even expressed support for that atrocity after it was committed. While Hamdi freely offered his services to the admittedly despicable Taliban junta, he posed no known threat to our nation or to any American citizen.

Man of principle: "I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake," explained Sir Thomas More, as portrayed in Robert Bolt's drama A Man for All Seasons. While others urged cutting a path through the laws to get at evil men, More understood that those who mow down laws that restrain the government do the devil 's work. The same is true of Jose Padilla, aka

Abdulla Al-Mu j ahir, suspected of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" here in the United States. Padilla is an ex-con who converted to radical Islam while in prison. Like Hamdi (and John Walker Lindh), Padilla migrated to Afghanistan, where he adhered to the Taliban junta. In early June, federal officials. at Chicago's O' Hare Airport arrested Padilla. Commenting on the arrest, Attorney General John Ashcroft called Padilla a "known terrorist." Within hours, President Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant," and he was taken into military custody in Virginia.

The Bush administration maintains that in dealing with captured enemy combatants, the judicial branch must defer to the military's judgment. But the new "legal regime" being developed is intended to reverse defeats suffered in the courtroom, rather than on the battlefield. Notes the Journal: "stung by the courtroom circus that . .. [accused terrorist] Zacarias Mous-saoui has created, and the aggressive defense marshaled by John Walker Lindh before he plea-bargained his way out of a possible life sentence, the

As Thomas More's daughter might say,

14

socia ted Press report observed that Padilla "is probably a ' mall fish' with no ties to al-Qaeda cell members in the United States .... The FBI's investigation has produced no evidence that Jose Padilla had begun preparations for an attack and little reason to believe he had any support from al-Qaeda to direct such a plot...." No formal charges have been made against Padilla - and the Bush administration insists none are necessary, since the presidential designation that Padilla is an "enemy combatant" is sufficient to justify his openended detention.

Bush administration is preparing to expand its policy of indefinitely detaining in U.S. military jails people it designates as 'enemy combatants ' .. .. "

Where do the president and his minions get the authority to seize and detain people at whim? Legal arguments made by the administration in the Yasser Hamdi case invoke the September 14, 2001 joint resolution from Congress authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terror-


ist attacks on September 11 , 2001." (Emphasis added.) The president has publicly cited that open-ended grant of power as justification for his announced policy of launching "pre-emptive" strikes (that is , offensive wars) against suspected terrorist states, without the constitutionally required declaration of war. But little attention has been paid to the fact that the president considers that resolution a declaration of war on the Bill of Rights as well.

According to the administration, those designated "enemy combatants" - whether Americans or foreigners captured in the U.S. - "aren ' t afforded the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants , or even the limited rights allowed in military tribunals," reported the Wall Street Journal. "The White House is considering creating a high-level committee to decide which prisoners should be denied access to federal courts."

Answering only to the president, that "high-level" committee would be an updated Star Chamber tribunal with the power to imprison at whim any individual - citizen or noncitizen - as an "enemy combatant."

"That sort of thing used to happen in the Soviet Union and may still happen today in Iran and Iraq, but it's not the sort of thing that should happen in the United States," observes Stephen Dycus of Vermont Law School. "If the government succeeds in this case, if its arguments are upheld it would mean that anybody, anytime could be labeled an enemy combatant by the at-


It has happened here: Following the murderous sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, the FDR administration - which had foreknowledge of the Imperial Japanese assault - consigned Americans of Japanese ancestry to "relocation camps. " While those detention centers were not as grim as stalags, gulags, or death camps, they nonetheless represent a blot on our nation 's character - and a precedent for future use of detention camps in the "war on terrorism."

torney general and arrested in the middle of the night and locked away in a military brig."

The power to seize detainees means little unless there are facilities to hold them, and the administration has begun - quietly but audibly - to discuss the supposed need for "detention camps." "The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft 's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases [those of Hamdi and Padilla] .. . to see whether their vision could become a reality," points out Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University.

"Whereas al-Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft [and, it must be added, the president who appointed him] has become a clear and present threat to our liberties," continues Turley. "Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrori st attacks .. .. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending."

The State's Eyes and Ears Subjects of the Soviet Union, National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, and other totalitarian police states were aware that they were under constant surveillance, and that any anti-government utterance could result in the dreaded "midnight knock" by the secret police. Thanks to the artfully misnamed USA PATRIOT Act - passed over-

whelmingly by Congress before much of its text had been written - Americans confront the specter of omnipresent federal surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism:

• Section 213 of the measure authorizes "black bag jobs" - covert break-ins - if they suspect that you are somehow involved in criminal behavior using a personal computer.

• Section 210 authorizes warrantless wiretaps and eavesdropping on phone calls, e-mails , and fax communications, and authorizes the feds to demand detailed personal customer information (including credit card and bank account numbers) from Internet Service Providers and telephone companies.

• One of the most appalling abuses generated by the bogus "war on drugs" is "asset forfe iture," the practice of seizing money and other assets allegedly connected to drug trafficking. It isn' t necessary to demonstrate that the property owner was somehow implicated in criminal activity, because the property itself is deemed "guilty" of a crime. Section 302 of the PATRIOT Act permits "forfeiture of any assets in connection with anti-terrorist efforts of the United States." If a citizen donates a single dollar to a group designated a "terrorist" organization, everything he owns can be seized by the feds.

• Sections 358 and 361 radically expand federal intrusion in the financial affairs of citizens. Under section 358, law enforcement and intelligence agencies can compel

15

ON THE HOME FRONT

As the campaign for "homeland security" proceeds, its architects strive to keep attention focused on foreign enemies. But nearly all of the proposed "security" measures are directed inward, at the potential victims of terrorism, a fact testifying that the "war on terrorism" is actually a war on American liberties.

banks, credit card and finance companies, and other financial agencies to turn over detailed personal information on targeted individuals. Section 361 gives the IRS's FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) expanded power to collect information on "non-bank networks," such as barter systems, check-cashing centers, etc .

• Section 802 offers an ominously elastic definition of "terrorism" including acts "dangerous to human life" or intended "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Obviously, violent acts of a political nature would fall under this definition. But what about peaceful protests or activism that leave government officials feeling "intimidated"? They would fall under this definition of "terrorism" as well.

Ambiguous laws are a hallmark of every police state. So are citizen informants. The Bush administration's TIPS (Terrorism Information Protection System) would conscript tens of millions of Americans to act as the eyes and ears of the federal government, using their casual or business associations to spy on friends, neighbors, clients, or other acquaintances. In Communist East Germany, roughly one quarter of the population worked as informants for the Stasi secret police; America in the "war on terrorism" threatens to eclipse that infamous accomplishment (see page 28).

Federal Police Monolith In addition to cutting down constitutional protections and expanding surveillance of the citizenry, the Bush administration's counter-terrorism campaign is rapidly amalgamating state and local police and emergency agencies into one vast, monolithic

16

"homeland security" apparatus . This is potentially disastrous, for two reasons: First, because a centralized counter-terrorism system gives terrorists the luxury of a single target; secondly, becau'se a centralized police system is a prerequisite for creating a totalitarian state.

Significantly, these two liabilities are mutually reinforcing. On September lIth, brave local police and firefighters were called on to give their lives because the federal government failed to carry out its chief function - protecting our nation from attack. The fedgov - steadily expanding its control over local police since 1994 - reacted to its Black Tuesday failure in classic fashion, demanding expanded power over state and local police and emergency services (also described as "first responders").

The Bush administration's National Strategy for Homeland Security contains this telling statement: "[T]he homeland security community will view the federal , state, and local governments as one entity .... " Rather than preserving our federal system, in which the central government has limited, delegated powers, the Bush administration is rushing to create a consolidated, nationalized law enforcement body extending even to passenger and baggage screeners at airports. Somehow, fed-

One possible future: A division of mechanized infantry occupies Brooklyn in The Siege, an eerily prescient 1998 motion picture depicting a terrorist campaign in New York City. In the aftermath of the rampage, the military seals off the borough, demands that Arab-Americans turn themselves in , and sets up detention camps to process suspects - measures not far removed from policy options presently being discussed by the Bush administration.

eralizing such employees is supposed to provide better security. Somehow, phasing out the state criminal codes in favor of a national criminal code, and absorbing local police agencies into a growing national police force, is supposed to provide better law enforcement. In reality, the notion that our nation's independent jurisdictions should be absorbed into "one entity" echoes ominously of a previous effort to nationalize law enforcement in the name of national security - the 1933-1936 drive for Gleichschaltung (coordination) in National Socialist Germany (see page 34).

As the campaign to erect a totalitarian "homeland security" apparatus proceeds, its architects are striving to keep public attention focused on our foreign enemies -whether it 's Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or another denizen yet to be identified. But nearly all of the proposed "security" measures are directed inward, at the potential victims of terrorism. This fact eloquently testifies that the "war on terrorism" is actually a war on American liberties . •


ON THE HOME FRONT

Foundations of the Garrison State Far from being a reaction to 9-11 , the proposed Department of Homeland Security is based on an elitist blueprint finished and on the .~residenrs desk before Black Tuesday.

by Steve Bonta

One of the themes trumpeted in the news media as a "lesson" to be learned from 9-11 is that the

federal government is too disorganized and inefficient to combat effectively a threat like terrorism. On October 8, 2001 , President Bush established by executive order the Office of Homeland Security, with former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as director. More recently, the Bush administration has proposed creating an entirely new cabinet-level department, the Department of Homeland Security, to fill the alleged

"0 void in homeland defense capabilities. ~

Ql "0

~ CL <t

The Department of Homeland Security might at first blush seem an appropriate prescription for the battle against domestic terrorism. Undeniably, America does face a serious threat. Moreover, defending the American homeland is certainly an important governmental function. The Founders intended for the federal government to be able to defend the United States of America; the weakness of the Articles of Confederation in providing for the common defense was one of the major factors that led to the 1787 constitutional convention. But the new Department of Homeland Security is unmistakably an Insider-inspired move to consolidate dangerous new powers in the executive branch of the federal government, and to erode the independence of state and local

Orwellian backdrop: President Bush unveils his "Homeland Security" strategy. Americans naturally rally around the president in times of criSis, but George W. Bush is exploiting public support on behalf of an agenda inimical to our freedom.

governments.

Dubious Origins The biggest red flag about the Department of Homeland Security is its origin. Unbeknownst to many Americans, our nation 's power elite had carefully planned for an Office of Homeland Security years before September 11 tho A few days after the Black Tuesday attacks, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the nerve center for America's pro-world-government Establishment, held a meeting in Washington,


D.C. , to promote the policy recommendations of an obscure task force, the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission. This group, known formally as the United States Commission on ational Security121st Century, had been working since 1998 on proposals for restructuring the U.S . government to prepare for 21st century challenges. The Commission, originally created at the urging of President Bill Clinton and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (both CFR members) , was entirely a CFR project. Chaired by former senators and CFR veterans Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) and Gary Hart (D-Colo.), the Commission sported an impressive roster of CFR Insiders, including CFR president Leslie Gelb, former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, and former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger.

The Hart-Rudman Commission produced several studies, beginning with New World Coming , which forecasted trends and events over the next quarter century. New World Coming foretells, chillingly,

that "Americans will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect us" and that "states, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."

The Hart-Rudman Commission also issued several other reports recommending changes in the federal government's organization. The most important proposal, recommended in another Commission report entitled Road Map for National Security, was the creation of a "National Homeland Security Agency." According to Road Map, this agency would have "the responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security." The Hart-Rudman study recommended placing Customs, Border Control, the Coast Guard, and many other federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the new cabinet-level agency.

19

ON THE HOME FRONT

communications with

The new Department of Homeland Security state and local governments , private industry, and the American people about threats and preparedness;

is unmistakably an Insider-inspired move to consolidate dangerous new powers in the executive branch of the federal government, and to erode the independence of state and

• One dep.artment to coordinate ou~ efforts to protect the American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction;

local governments.

The agency would also oversee state, local, and federal law enforcement. Its responsibilities would include "setting training and equipment standards, providing resource grants, and information sharing among state emergency management officials, local first responders, the Defense Department, and the FBI" - all, presumably, to combat the Commission's predicted threat of terrorism.

Shortly after President Bush took office, members of the Hart-Rudman Commission delivered copies of Road Map to the Bush administration. Unsurprisingly, within days after September 11 th, President Bush created his Office of Homeland Security, followed in June 2002 by a formal proposal to create an entirely new department. The blueprint for the new department followed the CFR panel's recommendations almost precisely.

Department of Everything The proposed new Department of Homeland Security, when fully operational, will become the most far-reaching of federal departments, with a vast jurisdiction embracing huge swaths of private activity as well as areas of state and local jurisdiction. According to President Bush 's own proposal, issued last June:

20

The Department of Homeland Security would make Americans safer because our nation would have:

• One department whose primary mission is to protect the American homeland;

• One department to secure our borders, transportation sector, ports, and critical infrastructure;

• One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources;

• One department to coordinate

• One department to help train and equip first responders;

• One department to manage federal emergency response activities.

The new department's sweeping jurisdiction will include, according to the Bush proposal , "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" - in other words, just about everything, from the food we produce and eat and the money we spend to the telephones and email we use to communicate.

The reason for claiming such an all-encompassing authority is that, in the words of the Bush proposal, many functio ns within the federal government are "currently fragmented" - that is, separated. But once upon a time, "fragmented" government worked very well; our American constitutional republic was crafted on the basis of the separation of powers, so that, in Madison's words, we could "first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." The Founders believed that the powers the new Constitution enumerated would enable the new federal government to govern effectively, despite the careful separation of powers and checks and balances that the Founders created.

Yet the Bush administration is dissatisfied with the federal arrangement. Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, speaking in November 2001, explained that homeland security was "to be a national strategy - not a federal strategy. The national strategy that the president envisions will in-

volve all levels of government, federal, state and local. It will tap the creative genius and resources of both the public and the private sectors .... Our national strategy will focus all the instruments of national power at our qisposal." A July 2002 document produced by the Office of Homeland Security made the picture still clearer, insisting that "the homeland security community will view the federal , state, and local governments as one entity."

Since the Constitution's ratification, the power and scope of the federal government have grown enormously, far exceeding its original constitutional limits. Never in American history - except, arguably, in wartime - has the federal government enjoyed more power over state and local governments and individual American citizens than now. The federal government is the largest employer in the United States, and even those of us working in the private sector still toil for months every year just earning the money to pay our federal taxes. Rules and regulations constrain our every activity, stifling private enterprise while spawning a vast professional sector of accountants, lawyers, and consultants who spend their time teaching us how to navigate the shoals of the federal bureaucratic ocean.

What need, then , do we have of yet another federal regu latory behemoth? Our problem is not that the federal government is too diffuse, or too fragmented. It's too large and too powerful , operating well beyond its constitutionally defined limits. Any new Department of Homeland Security will add huge new regulatory burdens and further expand the activities of the federal government into areas where it isn't authorized to act.

Feds and First Responders According to the Bush proposal, the new department would "coordinate, simplify, and where appropriate consolidate government relations on its issues for America's state and local agencies. It would coordinate federal homeland security programs and information with state and local officials .... It would manage federal grant programs for enhancing the preparedness of firefighters , police, and emergency medical personnel. It would set standards for state and local preparedness activities and equipment to ensure that these funds are spent according to good


statewide and regional plans." Quite so: The new department will be in the business of dictating to state and local "fIrst responders" - fIre, police, and other emergency workers - how better to do their jobs, via the inevitable federal standards and guidelines (read: "bureaucratic red tape").

Yet on September 11 th, the federal government did little to help the stricken people of lower Manhattan. Instead, even as Washington's elite huddled at a safe distance, New York City's "fIrst responders" - without the benefIt of any federally imposed mandates or standards - rushed into the flaming skyscrapers. Without federal supervision, they dragged many of the wounded to safety, and, when the towers fell, many heroic "fIrst responders" gave their lives. The only Americans able to confront the terrorists were the heroic passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, who, without the benefIt of military training or modern weaponry, hastily organized a counterattack against the men who had commandeered their plane, bringing it down in a remote Pennsylvania fIeld rather than allowing it to reach its intended target.

September 11 th was a story of improvised, frontline heroics by ordinary American citizens, and of panic and confusion on the part of the federal government, which had ignored and even suppressed critical intelligence prior to the attack. There's no basis for believing that the federal government should be entrusted with supervisory authority over all our multilayered defenses against terrorist attack, and every reason to believe that state and local "fIrst responders," free of federal interference, will do a better job every time.

The proposed Department of Homeland Security, then, is a gigantic, Insiderinspired new push to amass power at the federal level, and especially in the executive branch. Its misguided agenda to consolidate power over domestic security will be implemented at the expense of state and local independence, and will help lay the groundwork for a national police force . The Department of Homeland Security will prove in the long run to be the organizational template for massive new inroads on the sovereignty, privacy and freedoms of state and local governments as well as private citizens . •


Low Cost with Quick Deliveries

Class 10 to Class 1 00,000

Meets Stringent California Seismic Zone 4 Requirements

Easy-to-install End-user Kits (Factory Installation Available)

Designed for easy Expansions and Classification Up-grades

Cleanroom Furniture, Seating, Pass-Thru's and Consumables

Why call The Softwal/ Shop first? We will help define your cleanroom requirements and provide you with a comprehensive proposal, which can assist you in

requesting your "Apples-to-Apples" competitive bids.

888-561-1300 Tel • www.softwallshop.com • 800-581-7942 Fax

WATER EMPORIUM "The Smart Alternative"

• Filters • Reverse Osmosis

• Water Distillers

• Water Coolers

• Water Softeners

• Crocks & Stands • Free Advice vI

1281 East Calaveras BOUlevar~ Milpitas, CA 95035

(408) 942-9090 • Fax (408) 942-6842

ill of ights :First rren fZLmendments to the Constitution

.9Lrtic{e I. Congress sfia{{ mal(g no raw respecting an esta6{isfiment of re{igion, or profiioiting tfie free e'tercise tfiereoj; or aoriaging tfie freecfom of speecfi, or of tfie press; or tfie rigfit of tfie peop{e peacea6{y to assem6{e, ana to petition tfie government for a rearess of grievances_

.9Lrtic{e I I. 5t we{{-regu{atea miatia oeing necessary to tfie security of a free state, tfie rigfit of tfie peop{e to I(gep ana oear arms sfia{{ not oe infringed.

.9Lrtic{e I I I . 'J{p soUier sfia{[' in time of peace, oe quarterea in any fiouse, witfiout tfie consent of tfie owneTj nor in time of war, out in a manner to oe prescrioea oy raw_

.9Lrtic{e 10/. 'Tfie rigfit of tfie peop{e to oe secure in tfieir persons, fiouses, papers, ana effects against unreasona6{e searcfies ana seizures sfia{{ not oe vio{atee( ana no warrants sfia{{ issue, out upon prooa6{e cause, supportea oy oatfi or affirmation, ana particu{ady aescrioing tfie peace to oe searcfiee( ana tfie persons or tfiings to oe seized.

.9Lrtic{e 0/. 'J{p person sfia{{ oe fie{a to answer for a capita{, or otfierwise infamous crime, un{ess on a presentment or inaictment of a grana jury, e~ept in cases arising in tfie rana or nava{ forces, or in tfie miatia, wfien in actua{ service in time of war or pu6{ic aanger; nor sfia{{ any person oe suoject for tfie same offense to oe twice put in jeoparay of {ife or amo; nor sfia{{ oe compe{{ea in any crimina{ case to oe a witness against fiimser;; nor oe aeprivea of

{ife, a6erty, or property, witfiout aue process of raw; nor sfia{{ private property oe tal(gn for pu6{ic use, witfiout just compensation_

.9Lrtic{e 0/1. In a{{ crimina{ prosecutions tfie accusea sfia{{ enjoy tfie rigfit to a speeay ana pu6{ic tria[, oy an impartia{ jury of tfie state ana aistrict wfierein tfie crime sfia{{ fiave oeen committee( wfiicfi aistrict sfia{{ fiave oeen previous{y ascertainea oy raw, ana to oe informea of tfie nature ana cause of tfie accusation; to oe confrontea witfi tfie witnesses against fiim; to fiave compufsory process for ootaining witnesses in fiis favor, ana to fiave tfie assistance of counse{ for fiis aejense_

.9Lrtic{e 0/11. In suits at common raw, wfiere the va{ue in controversy sfia{{ e'tceea twenty ao{rars, tfie rigfit of triaC oy jury sfia{{ oe preservee( ana no fact triea oy a jury sfia{{ oe otfierwise re-qaminea in any court oj tfie 'llniteaStates, tfian accoraing to tfie ru{es of tfie common {aw_

.9Lrtic{e 0/111. 'E'tcessive oai{ sfia{{ not oe requiree( nor e'tcessive fines imposee( nor crue{ ana unusua{ punisfiments inf{ictea_

.9Lrtic{e IX. 'Tfie enumeration in tfie Constitution, of certain rigfits, sfia{{ not oe construea to aeny or aisparage otfiers retainea oy tfie peop{e_

.9Lrtic{e X . 'Tfie powers not adegatea to tfie 'llnitea States oy tfie Constitution, nor profiioitea oy it to tfie states, are reservea to tfie states respective{y, or to tfie peop{e_

We at mean Serrers ~ord 6dieve freedom of mo6ifity is as fundamenta[ as our 'Bi[[ of if\igfits.

See 'Dean Sd[ers :Ford for your new freedom macfiine.

2600 %ap[e tJ\{f., rrroy, %icfiigan (248) 643-7500

www.deansd[ersforci.com

ON THE HOME FRONT

Militarizing Mayberry State and local police agencies are being transformed into paramilitary affiliates of a centralized police force controlled by Washingtof)J. D.C. .~


I n the mythical hamlet of Mayberry, as depicted on the beloved Andy Griffith Show, Sheriff Andy Taylor wore his

authority lightly, rarely even carrying a gun. His comically high-strung deputy, Barney Fife, was issued a single bullet, which he never used.

While The Andy Griffith Show is idealized fiction, "Sheriff Andy" does embody an authentic American concept of law enforcement: The lawman whose role is to protect and serve the community in which he lives.

The antithesis of that noble concept is an army of occupation, accountable only to the distant ruling elite whose whims it enforces on a tyrannized population. Tragically, America is moving away from the idealized concept of law enforcement toward the totalitarian model. With increasing federal involvement in law enforcement has come increasing militarization. That process, already underway before Black Tuesday, has accelerated dramatically because of that atrocity, with ominous implications for our liberties.

ber 11th attack. "We should always be reviewing things

like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people," stated four-star general Ralph E. Eberhart on July 17th. Air Force General Eberhart, heads the recently cre-

tus Act of 1878 and any other laws that sharply restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement," reported the July 18th New York Times.

"Posse Comitatus" means "power of the county." The 1878 act, which ended the military occupation of the Southern states

after the Civil War, prohibits the use of the military "as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws .... " A 1981 congressional report pointed out that the Posse Comitatus Act encapsulates "the traditional Anglo-American principle of separation of military and civilian spheres of authority, one of the fundamental precepts of our form of government." Moreover, that act acknowledges a largely forgotten fact about our constitutional system: Law enforcement is properly an almost exclusive concern of local, county, and state governments.

"0

"Since the writing of the Declaration of Independence, Americans have mistrusted standing armies and have seen them as instruments of oppression and tyranny," observed Matthew Carlton

~ Hammond in a 1997 analysis pub-

War at Home "Flame throwers? Tanks? Yes -use ' em. Helicopters? Bazookas? Cannons? Sure ." Against whom would this formidable arsenal be arrayed? AI-Qaeda, perhaps, or Taliban holdouts in Afghanistan?

Dependable duo: In The Andy Griffith Show, Sheriff Andy and his comic sidekick Barney Fife embodied the ideal of locally accountable law enforcement. That ideal is being eclipsed as the federal government expands its control over increasingly militarized local police.

~ lished by the Washington Univer~ sity Law Quarterly. "Over time, « the military has increased its es-

teem among the populace, but it has always been held separate from civilian government and limited to its focused goal of military preparedness and national security."

Or maybe murderous Abu Sayyaf terrorist cadres in the Philippines? No. The speaker is not a military commander, but former Minneapolis police chief Tony Bouza, captured on film in Urban Warrior, a documentary depicting the accelerating drive to militarize local police. Significantly, the interview with Bouza was conducted by director Matt Ehling prior to the Septem-


ated Northern Command, assigned the specific task of protecting the U.S. homeland.

Eberhart's suggestion was echoed by Homeland Security Adviser Tom Ridge, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.), and numerous pundits. The Bush administration "has directed lawyers in the Departments of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comita-

Obviously, those who enlist to serve as either military personnel or police carry out tasks that are both honorable and indispensable to the preservation of our liberties. But those roles involve mutually incompatible approaches to the use of force, as well as different lines of authority. "Civilian law enforcement is traditionally local in character, responding to needs at the city, county, or state level," Ham-

23

ON THE HOME FRONT

enforcement.''' The HRT,

Those who enlist to serve as either military personnel or police carry out tasks that are both honorable and indispensable to the

continues Hardy, is part of "an elite military force ... of growing size: nearly 10 percent of the FBI is presently enrolled in its HRT teams . or the many other SWAT~like units created by other agencies."

preservation of our liberties. But those roles involve mutually incompatible approaches to the use of force. Prior to the February

1993 ATF assault on Waco's Branch Davidian church,

then-Texas Governor Ann Richards was able to exploit a "drug war" loophole in the Posse Corrtitatus Act inserted by Congress in 1989. Falsely asserting that the Davidians were implicated in drug trafficking, Richards signed a waiver requesting military support for the raid. This perrrtitted the FBI to deploy tanks, aircraft, supplies, manpower, and high-tech equipment during the 51 -day siege.

mond notes. Police are trained for "civilian law enforcement," meaning that they are expected "to use lesser forms of force when possible [and] to draw their weapons only when they are prepared to fire."

For military personnel, Hammond continues, "escalation is the rule" - and quite properly so, given their specific responsibilities. "The military exists to carry out the external mission of defending the nation. Thus, in an encounter with a person identified with the enemy, soldiers need not be cognizant of individual rights .... " Police analyst Diane Cecilia Weber elaborates on that point: "[T]he mindset of the soldier is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer. Police officers confront not an 'enemy,' but individuals who are protected by the Bill of Rights. Confusing the police function with the rrtilitary function can lead to dangerous and unintended consequences - such as unnecessary shootings and killings."

Mackubin Thomas Owens, professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College, concurs. "Employing the U.S. military as a domestic police force is a recipe for disaster," writes Owens. "The U.S. rrtilitary is structured to play 'away games.' It is good at protecting the United States by threatening the sanctuary of our adversaries abroad. There are, of course, things the military can do to enhance the security of the American homeland, but we should not be blurring further the distinction between rrtilitary activities and domestic law enforcement."

That critical border has become particularly thin where it divides the military from federal law enforcement agencies. Former federal attorney David Hardy points out that the FBI's "Hostage Rescue Team" (HRT), which played a lethal role in the stand-offs at Ruby Ridge and Waco, "was superbly trained for war, not for 'law

24

What Happened to Mayberry? Even greater damage has resulted from ongoing efforts to transform state and local law enforcement agencies into paramilitary armies of occupation in their communities - a process Weber describes as "Militarizing Mayberry."

Legal analyst Hammond points out that federal courts have authorized "exceptions in name" to the Posse Comitatus Act that "allow the military to provide equipment and supplies, technical assistance, information, and training to law enforcement agencies," most commonly under the rubric of the "war on drugs." By way of this exception, "Congress has encouraged the U.S. military to supply intelligence, equipment, and training to civilian police," notes Weber. "That encouragement has spawned a culture of paramilitarism in American law enforcement."

While relatively few Americans have had traumatic run-ins with federal paramilitaries, the federally funded militarization of local police directly impacts nearly every American community. By the end of the 1990s, writes Weber, "nearly 90 percent of the police departments surveyed in communities with populations over 50,000 had pararrtilitary units, as did 70 percent of the departments surveyed in communities with populations under 50,000. The Pentagon has been equipping those units with M-16s, armored personnel carriers, and

grenade launchers. The police pararrtilitary units also conduct training exercises with active duty Army Rangers and Navy SEALs."

This sharing of technology and training "is prodqcing a shared mindset" between the military and police, warns Weber. She cites the example of a small Midwestern town whose police department "sends out patrols dressed in tactical uniform in a military personnel carrier. The armored vehicle, according to the SWAT commander, stops 'suspicious vehicles and people. We'll stop anything that moves. We' ll sometimes even surround suspicious homes and bring out the MP5s [machine guns].' "

Another tactical officer with a metropolitan force refers to "saturation patrols" carried out by tactical teams in his city: "We do a lot of our work with the SWAT unit because we have bigger guns. We send out two, two-to-four men cars, we look for minor violations and do jump-outs, either on people or on the street or automobiles . After we jump out the second car provides periphery cover with an ostentatious display of weaponry."

It is important to recognize that these snapshots of the emerging U.S. garrison state come from local officers increasingly funded and trained by the federal government. The training they receive, in tum, is largely derived from doctrines put into practice in UN "peacekeeping" rrtissions overseas, in which co-mingling of police and military roles is the rule, rather than the exception.

In Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere, many U.S. military personnel carry out a role similar to that of "beat cops" on American streets. "We were essentially used to 'enforce the peace' by being there and maintaining a presence," retired Army Sergeant Joe Kelly, who served in the Bosnian peacekeeping mission, told THE NEW AMERICAN. "We would do foot patrols, guard cemeteries, help put down riots , and every once in a while we'd 'lock and load' just to let some hard cases know we were serious." This approach resembles that of the tactical officers described above. That similarity reflects the extent to which our independent, local police forces are being amalgamated into a centralized, rrtilitarized, "internal security" apparatus . •


ON THE HOME FRONT

Their Target: Your Guns With America on the front line of the terror war, it would be insane to disarm law-abiding citizens. Yet this is what the UN seeks - and the B~.sh administration is qUietly acquiescing.

by Thomas R. Eddlem

, , T his declaration of rights, as I take it, is intended to secure the people against the

mal-administration of the government," stated Congressman Elbridge Gerry (Mass.) as he opened di scussion of the Second Amendment on August 17, 1789. "If we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed ... . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

This is clearly illustrated in the recent debate over arming commercial airline pilots. Though the president himself avoided publicly discussing the issue, his staff took the lead in pushing the restriction of firearms possession to agents of the state. Speaking on behalf of the administration, Undersecretary of Transportation John Magaw told a May 21st congressional hearing: "The use of firearms aboard a U.S. aircraft must be limited to ... thoroughly trained members of law enforcement." Confronted with a grounds well of public supPOlt for congressional proposals to arm pilots, administration officials unveiled a tiny "test" program for a selected armament of pilots just before the vote.

That the Bush administration doesn' t even trust pistols to airline pilotsmany of whom, after all, had previously been entrusted with nuclear weapons

~ ~ as Air Force pilots - speaks volumes

Like the other Founders, Gerry used the term "militia" to describe an armed, law-abiding citizenry capable of defending their homes and communities. Recognizing the right to armed selfdefense within the Bill of Rights sets the U.S. apart from nearly every other government in history up until that time. During the debate over ratifying the Constitution, James Madison contrasted "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," to "the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe ... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Founders rightfully viewed an armed population as free citizens, and a disarmed population as slaves subject to the whim of the state.

~.~~~~!J ~ about the elitist worldview of the Bush ::iI ~ administration with respect to firearms

The UN's anti-gun vision is displayed in this ownership. sculpture entitled "Disarmament," positioned as the first thing a visitor sees when entering the courtyard at UN Headquarters. According to the world body, governments must disarm their subjects to have a monopoly on force - a view that led to tens of millions of deaths during the 20th Century.

Tyrants throughout history have always monopolized the use of force . This is particularly true of modem totalitarian states. During the 20th century, the dreadful cost of "gun control" has become painfully evident. In their study Lethal Laws, researchers Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan Rice surveyed the eight bloodiest genocidal regimes over the last 100 years - among them Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia - and found that in every case severe restrictions on citizen firearms own-


ership were in place before the genocide took place. The authors conclude that "an armed citizenry is as close to being immunized against genocide as seems possible."

Governments either recognize and protect the individual right to keep and bear arms or embrace the totalitarian notion that the state exclusively enjoys the use of force. Some nations not blessed with the equivalent of our Second Amendment have governments that allow private gun ownership, but only as a limited and revocable privilege. The Bush administration, despite its pro-Second Amendment posturing, has embraced the totalitarian perspective on this fundamental issue.

George W. VS. 2nd Amendment Gun confiscation proponents prefer to frame discussion in terms of what the Second Amendment "permits" citizens to do, rather than what it forbids the federal government to do. That amend-

ment, properly understood, imposes a comprehensive ban on federal laws and policies infringing on the right of armed self-defense. The Bush administration, like its predecessor, favors unconstitutional measures amounting to an incremental assault on that right. A Bush administration fact sheet stated that "in addition to strict enforcement of existing gun laws, the President supports expanding instant background checks to close the gun show loophole and banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips."

In May 2001, President Bush initiated "Project Safe Neighborhoods" (PSN), a major federal program with limitless po-

25

ON THE HOME FRONT

The horrific death toll of modern totalitarian "Ultimately, the ownership of arms should not be left to the personal choice of individuals," wrote Faltas in a UN-sponsored report. "The state needs to preserve its mqnopoly of the legitimate use of force."

regimes validates the Founders' wisdom in protecting the right to armed self-defense. Americans who cherish freedom must work to protect the right that protects all the others.

This was the "consen-

tential for anti-gun activism. "This nation must enforce the gun laws which exist on the books," Bush said at the time.

PSN amounts to a public works project for anti-gun prosecutors. Bush administration spokesman Ari Fleischer boasts that "$558.8 million is in the Bush [2001-2002] budget for Project Safe Neighborhoods, and that provides $15.3 million for 113 new U.S . attorneys to serve as full-time gun prosecutors; [and] $75 million to fund 600 new state and local gun prosecutors to work in partnership with federal law enforcement to reduce gun violence." Irrigating the legal system with this much federal funding is bound to produce a bumper crop of gun prosecutions, most of which will be for trivial infractions, such as errors in paperwork. Just as importantly, it consolidates existing unconstitutional gun laws, based on the false premise that gun laws really do deter crime.

Following 9-11 , President Bush designated Project Safe Neighborhoods a key part of his war on terrorism. "[Y]ou are now on the front line of war," President Bush told an assembly of PSN prosecutors. Referring to the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, the president declared, "make no mistake about it, we've got a war here just like we've got a war abroad." In a significant and little-understood way, the Bush administration's anti-gun "war" is just one front in the U 's global war on personal firearms ownership.

Promotion of Global Gun Control Sarni Faltas, an official with the Bonn International Centre for Conversion, has advised the U in its "peacekeeping" missions, which inevitably include disarming civilian populations. Faltas points out that a "subtle mix of rewards and penalties" offers the most promising approach to civilian disarmament - but at some point sterner measures will have to be employed.

26

sus" adopted by the UN at its July 2001 Conference on Small Arms. The Bush administration publicly dissented from some of the language contained in the Program of Action produced by that conference, thereby earning plaudits from the American gun community. But the position staked out for the administration by Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton during the UN small arms conference was an artful denial of the right to armed selfdefense. Addressing the conference, Bolton stated that "the United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life. Like many countries, the United States has a cultural tradition of hunting and sport shooting." owhere in his speech did Bolton recognize the role that an armed citizenry plays in defending itself from violent crime and political oppression.

While the Bush administration has successfully placated the National Rifle Association and other sporting groups, it has covertly promoted an anti-gun agenda at the UN. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1373, President Bush told the General Assembly in November 2001, "We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them." This amounts to a UN mandate to national governments for detailed , invasive scrutiny of all private firearms transactions.

In its December 21, 2001 report to the UN's Counter Terrorism Committee -which is monitoring the UN-led "war on terrorism" - the Bush administration endorsed "data exchanges on small armsllight weapons" as part of the global counter-terrorism campaign . The same report described inspecting gun sales and gun transfer information as "an important new focus" of UN anti-terrorism efforts.

The UN followed up the U.S. report by requesting detailed information: "What measures does the United States have to

prevent terrorists (from) obtaining weapons in its territory, in particular small arms or light weapons? What is the United States legislation concerning the acquisition and possession of such weapons? .. Are there agencies and procedures at the local level for monitoring sensitive activities, such as combat sports and shooting with light weapons, paramilitary training, the piloting of aircraft, biological laboratories and the use of explosives for industrial purposes?" (Emphasis added.) The "Project Safe Neighborhoods" initiative, which the president described as a "front line" campaign in the war on terrorism, conveniently engages in the kind of high-tech research and "education, prevention and intervention" programs about guns and gun owners that the UN is seeking. And note that the UN inquiries were based on two flawed assumptions: that the UN should concern itself with the firearms policies of any nation, and that it is proper for our government to impose and enforce national firearms laws, with the ultimate objective of claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force by banning individual firearms ownership.

The elitist mentality on firearms shared by the UN and the Bush administration offers a strong contrast to the world view of America's Founding Fathers. The Framers of our Constitution remembered the role played by an armed citizenry in resisting British tyranny, and eventually claiming our independence from a globe-spanning empire.

They also viewed an armed citizenry as a bulwark against crime, terrorism, and tyranny. That view was plain to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who personally knew several of America's Founding Fathers: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms had justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers ; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The horrific death toll of modern totalitarian regimes validates the Founders' wisdom in protecting the right to armed selfdefense. Americans who cherish freedom must work to protect the right that protects all the others . •


ON THE HOME FRONT

TIPping Off Big Brother If the Bush administration's citizen informant program 'TIPS" is fully implemented, America may end up a nation of tattletales and civilian spies that would make' Big Brother proud .

. '. by Steve Bonta

Of all the horrors depicted in George Orwell 's fictional dystopian classic 1984, none is more depressing

than the fate of Parsons, the dull-witted, good-natured neighbor of the novel's protagonist, Winston Smith. Early in the story, Winston, who has already committed "thoughtcrime" against the totalitarian regime of the Party and Big Brother, comes face to face with Parsons' two fearsome children, who have been indoctrinated in the ways of the Party at a tender age:

"Up with your hands!" yelled a savage voice.

symptoms of unorthodoxy. Nearly all children nowadays were horrible .. .. [H]ardly a week passed in which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak .. . had over-

A handsome, tough-looking boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing him with a toy automatic pistol, while his small sister, about two years younger, made the same gesture with a fragment of wood. Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, gray shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies. Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy's demeanor, that it was not altogether a game.

"You 're a traitor!" yelled the boy. "You're a thought-criminal! You 're a Eurasian spy! I'll shoot you, I'll vaporize you, I'll send you to the salt mines!"

The State's all-seeing eyes: In Orwell 's 1984, Oceania's oppressed inhabitants knew that their friends and family members could be informants for the State. America would move ominously in that direction under the Bush administration's "TIPS" program.

Suddenly they were both leaping around him, shouting "Traitor!" and "Thought-criminal! ", the little girl imitating her brother in every movement.

Winston eventually leaves the terrified mother to deal with her ferocious, brainwashed children, reflecting that the "wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for

28

heard some compromising remark and denounced his parents to the Thought Police."

Soon after Winston 's unsettling encounter, Parsons proudly informs Winston over lunch that his little ones take their duties as citizen spies seriously, having recently turned in a suspicious-looking bystander to the Thought Police. In the end, though, Parsons' little daughter denounces her own father to the Thought Police, after overhearing Parsons utter "Down with Big Brother!" in his sleep. Mr. Parsons, brimming with servile pride at his daughter'S

vigilant "patriotism," is locked in the same cell as Winston Smith, deep within the Ministry of Love, to await the inevitable death sentence.

Orwellian Reality Orwell did not invent the notion of citizen spies. Orwell 's fictional Oceania, a place where parents live in terror of their own children - where no friendship is completely secure from suspicion, and where neighbors, co-workers, and passersby are all enlisted in a vast network of civilian informants - resembles conditions that existed in Stalin's reign of terror, and in all modern totalitarian states. Realizing that a cowed and brainwashed populace can carry out surveillance better than a million trained agents, Communist tyrants from East Germany to Cuba created revolutionary circles, youth groups, and other organizations specifically to enable the Party faithful in every walk of life to police everybody else.

Such methods would have been unthinkable in the United States, until recently. In the new topsy-turvy political climate of post-September 11 th, the specter of a national system of civilian spies and informants is dangerously close to becoming reality, and all in the name of fighting terrorism. Already, jittery Americans willingly turn in innocent strangers on the strength of over-

heard snatches of conversation, as occurred on September 13th when Florida authorities acted on a tip from a waitress who claimed to have overheard three Middle Eastern-looking men engaged in suspicious conversation about September 11th and terrorism. A 17-hour statewide manhunt ensued, in which the three suspects, driving two cars, were eventually captured. Because they were "uncooperative," according to officials (they refused to give permission to have their vehicles searched), the three men - two American citizens and a foreigner with a valid visa - were


forced to stand by while authorities searched their cars and personal effects, even detonating a backpack, while news helicopters hovered overhead.

It turned out, though, that the three men were medical students on their way to a training program at a Florida hospital. The hospital promptly canceled their enrollment in the program, while the men pondered whether to take legal action. Said the father of one of the three men, who are all Muslims, "the situation used to be Americans are innocent until proven guilty. Now it's the other way around."

Bush's TIPS Program Episodes like this one may become routine if the Bush administration's TIPS program is put into effect as planned. TIPS, the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, is but one facet of President Bush's newly created Citizen Corps, an organization designed to help "every American become active in the homeland security effort," in the words of Citizen Corps' website.

According to an early posting on the program's website, TIPS will involve "millions of American workers who, in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to see potentially unusual or suspicious activity in public places." In its original form, TIPS drew a chorus of protests for proposals to enlist not only federal government employees such as postal workers, but also private-sector workers like cable repairmen and electricians, who have access to private homes and businesses.

The whole point of TIPS is to enlist American citizens in surveillance activities that the state is either legally or physically unable to do. As a July 14th Washington Post editorial aptly put it, "Americans should not be subjecting themselves to law enforcement scrutiny merely by having cable lines installed, mail delivered or meters read. Police cannot routinely enter people's houses without either permission or a warrant. They should not be using utility workers to conduct surveillance they could not lawfully conduct themselves." If we continue to follow the Bush administration 's prescription for the war on terrorism, though, we may end up a nation of tattletales and informants. Big Brother would be proud . •


Access hundreds of online articles on over 50 topics!

www.thenewamerican . .cDm/topics/

_ E~~cat~c::: ' T e l'l'Ol'lSl11

Unit=-d Nations

Military _..r-""" - BconOJlliC~

-- ~"..-~.,.

property Rights

Immigration

con stitution - G~n ContrOL

new m rlcan

DREAM HOME, DREAM BUSINESS!

EARN UP TO $15,000 PER SALE!

Why pay retail? Learn how to save you or your customers up to 25% on the

total cost of a new custom built home.

• Free "Start Right" Video Series • Free Training & Support • No Building Experience Required • $6,500 Min. Deposit Required • National Financing Since 1983

• National Alliances • PIT or Fff

Minuteman Payment Systems

Get paid by: • credit cards • debit cards • ATM machines • ACHfunding • electronic giftcards • check conversion • check protection • Internet

p.o. box 207 mansfield, rna 02048

toll free 866-61CARDS Representing National City Bank of Kentucky

Great opportunity for self-motivated salespeople

WORLD GOVERNMENT

Toward a Global Police State Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. government has been implementing a decades-old strategy to make the UN the most powerful force on Earth.

by John F. McManus

I f a group of would-be megalomaniacs intended to create a global police state, the path to success would be far easier

if countries would establish their own national police forces first. Once established, and once political betrayals had placed nation after nation under global control, a mere signature on a piece of paper, or a verbal command, would suffice to convert these state-run law enforcement agencies into enforcers for the world government.

The plans to build a national police force in America are being realized, even as our nation is being steadily delivered to world government under the UN.

More than 40 years ago, America's leaders announced their intention to subject our nation to formal UN control. Two documents issued during the Kennedy administration outlined nearly identical plans. Though the young president nominally headed the U.S. government, matters such as disarmament and u.s. relationship with the UN were handled by men he had put in place at the State and Defense departments. At the time, Dean Rusk and Robert S. McNamara, veteran members of the Council on Foreign Relations , led these fu ndamentally important divisions of government. America was being led then, and has continued to be led ever since then, by like-minded individuals working to achieve the CFR's world-government goal.

Monopoly of Power Less than a year after taking office, Mr. Kennedy journeyed to UN headquarters in New York City on September 25, 1961 to unveil an official U.S . policy entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program For General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, also known as Department of State Publication 7277. (For the full text of Freedom From War, see www.jbs.org/resources/dos_7277.htm. ) In a major speech, he asked the assembled representatives of the world's governments


American blood for a new world order: The remains of six American soldiers killed in the Korean War are buried under the UN flag , not the U.S. flag. North Korea retu rned the remai ns in 1999. If the UN becomes the world's policeman, this scene will be repeated again and again .

to commit "not to an arms race, but to a peace race - to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved." It is important to understand, however, that "disarmament" under the UN does not mean eliminating all weapons but giving the UN a monopoly of power.

The three stages contained in Freedom From War call for a variety of arms control agreements (many of which have already been created) and a steady buildup of UN military capabilities to create a "U.N. Peace Force." Stage III proclaims that "progressive controlled disarmament . . . would proceed to a point where no state would have the power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." Consequently, nationhood would become meaningless and the UN would rule mankind.

Walt Rostow (CFR) was one of the Kennedy administration's planners who produced Freedom From War. Employed as a deputy special assistant for national secu-

rity affairs when the Kennedy administration took office, his book The United States in the World Arena had just appeared. Among hundreds of pages of his clearly subversive views, he wrote:

It is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all nations - including the United States - the right to use substantial military force to pursue their own objectives. Since this residual right is the root of national sovereignty ... it is , therefore , an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined.

The disarmament envisioned by those who produced Freedom From War is directed not only at every nation 's military forces but at any force standing in the way of total UN control. The only weapons permitted outside of those possessed by the UN's Peace Force would be those "required for

31

WORLD GOVERNMENT

the purpose of maintaining internal order." In addition, the document states that "the manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N ... . to maintain internal order."

What about privately owned weapons? The document does not mention small arms explicitly, but it does make clear: "All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes ." There should be no doubt as to the intent of the internationalists to eventually eliminate private firearms. The statue of the handgun with the twisted barrel in front of UN headquarters offers a powerful clue (see the photo on page 25). That anti-gun image is consistent with Un Secretary-General Kofi Annan's official 2000 report entitled We the Peoples. He stated: "Controlling the proliferation of illicit [e.g., civilian-owned] weapons is a necessary first step towards the non-proliferation of small arms ... . These weapons must be brought under the control of states , and states must be held responsible for their transfer."

A year after Kennedy completed his scripted performance before the UN, Senator Joseph Clark (D-Penn.) assured his colleagues on September 1, 1962 that Freedom From War was "the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the United States." The document was superseded in 1962 by Blueprintfor the Peace Race: Outline of Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. But the Blueprint candidly admits that it "elaborates and extends the proposals of September 25," the date of Kennedy's UN speech. It is essentially the same suicidal proposal.

Questioned about the U.S. commitment to the Blueprint, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) official A. Richard Richstein confirmed in a May 11, 1982 letter that "the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal." Congressman Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.) thought so highly of it that he entered the entire document in the Congressional Record on May 25, 1982. In January 1991 , William Nary, the official historian of the ACDA, confirmed that "the proposal has not been withdrawn [and] certain features of it have been incorporated into subsequent disarmament agreements." He repeated his assessment in November 1993.

32

In 1998, the ACDA was dissolved and its functions transferred to the State Department's Non-Proliferation division. Questioned about the current status of Freedom From War and Blueprint, division spokesmen could not or would not comment.

The other important Kennedy-era document detailing the plan to tonvert America into a mere province of a UN-led world government is A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, which emerged from the shadows in the early 1960s. It was prepared in 1962 under a contract issued by the State Department led by the same Dean Rusk. Its author, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, also held CFR membership.

Fifty-eight pages in length, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations wastes no time establishing its subversive goal. Terms such as "universal membership [in the UN]," "monopoly of force [possessed by the U ]," and "[a UN] world government" appear when the author defined his terms. Bloomfield 's plan concluded: "The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of sovereign power from the states to the supranational government .. . the loss of control of their military power." This is essentially the goal sought in Freedom From War.

How would the future "world government" deal with isolated uprisings, unruly citizenry, or guerrilla warfare? In one of two answers to this question, Bloomfield offered: "No international system except a total tyranny complete with the apparatus of a police state would be capable of dealing with certainty with this type of disorder."

Bloomfield suggested reliance on "a total tyranny complete with the apparatus of a police state" only if "international peace and security were jeopardized." And this total tyranny should be employed only "in appropriate circumstances." To summarize: No one but UN-authorized police or military would be permitted to threaten the world.

Step by Step Efforts to transfer America's military to the UN haven't always been obvious. Logic, however, dictates that one seeks authorization from a superior, not an inferior. That our nation has repeatedly played the role of inferior to the UN cannot be denied.

Our sovereignty is indeed being eroded through loss of control of our armed forces, as indicated in the following summary.

• The Korean War (1950-1953) was fought under obvious UN authorization and Congress allowed it. Never fully concluded, the war cost 55,000 American lives.

• American forces fought the Vietnam War under SEATO's authorization. State Department Bulletin #8062 of March 28, 1966 stated: "The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization was designed as a collective defense arrangement under Article 51 of the UN Charter. ... "

• President George H.W. Bush went to the UN for authorization to invade Iraq in the 1991 "war" known as Desert Storm. More than a year after the fighting ended, Mr. Bush stated during a campaign speech, "I didn ' t have to get permission from some old goat in Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait."

• In 1993, as he was preparing to send U.S. troops into Haiti to enforce another UN resolution, President Bill Clinton asserted, "I would welcome the support of Congress, and I hope that I will have that. [But] like my predecessors of both parties, I have not agreed that I was constitutional-

. ly mandated to get it." • One day after 9-11, George W. Bush

obtained UN authorization to attack Afghanistan. On September 29,2001, the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 1373, a U.S.-sponsored measure obliging all UN member nations to cooperate in the fight against terrorism.

• On September 12, 2002, President Bush went to UN headquarters seeking authorization to use U.S. might to enforce a series of UN Security Council resolutions .

Once a nation loses control of its military, its ability to function independently disappears. Whoever possesses the force of arms that previously guaranteed independence will have become the dictator of future conduct. If resistance develops, military force or military-directed police will be employed, as Freedom From War indicated, "to maintain internal order."

The result will be "peace," but it will be the peace of submission more commonly known as the peace of the grave. That this is what U.S. leaders are bringing about cannot be denied. To stop this treachery, Americans must insist that Congress withdraw this nation from the UN . •



From Republic to Reich Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime exploited a terrorist assault on the Reichstag Building to carry out a pre-positioned strategy to convert the Weimar Republic into a pOlice state.


I t had taken nearly 15 years, but Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party had finally

clawed its way to power. On January 30, 1933, Reichschancellor Hitler solemnly swore an oath to uphold the Weimar Republic's constitution . Hours later he convened his first cabinet meeting to plot the republic's overthrow. The first item on that meeting 's agenda dealt with what could be called "Fatherland security." Hitler and his cohorts examined a legislative draft entitled Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich - "Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich."

c:: g :;

ing. The fire was the result of an arson attack - either by a Communist saboteur (as the Nazis claimed) or by a Nazi provocateur (to provide the excuse Hitler needed to put his program into action). Before the smoke had cleared, Hitler had already pre-

I L..-.::.---=::! ___

the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the Press; on the rights of assembly and association; violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications; warrants for house searches; orders for confiscation as

well as restrictions on property, are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Better known as the "Enabling Act," the proposed legislation was designed to consolidate power in the hands of the chancellor and his cabinet in the event of a terrorist strike or similar threat to German national security. Since the 1918 Armistice that ended World War I, the German people had been battered by revolution , and their economy had been obliterated by depression and hyperinflation. While the Germans were desperate for leadership, they weren't willing to give their government absolute power - yet.

Hitler and his squalid clique of criminals and degenerates understood that the public mood might be altered by a sudden,

Igniting tyranny: An arson attack destroyed a large section of Germany's Reichstag (parliament) Building in February 1933. Shocked by the brazen terrorist assault, and fearing a complete breakdown of order, the German parliament approved the "Enabling Act," which provided the legal foundation for Hitler's murderous dictatorship.

In his memoir Defying Hitler, Sebastian Haffner - a German lawyer who fled to England in 1938 - recalls that the presidential decree "abolished freedom of speech and confidentiality of the mail and telephone for all private individuals, while giving the police unrestricted rights of search and access, confiscation and arrest. That afternoon [of the day after the decree was issued] men with ladders went around, covering campaign posters with plain white paper. All parties of the left had been prohibited from any further election pUblicity. Those newspapers that still appeared reported all this in a fawni ng, fervently patriotic, jubilant tone. We had been saved! What good luck! Germany was free! Next Saturday all Germans would come together in a festival of national exaltation, their hearts swelling with gratitude! Get the torches and flags out!"

But even after the initial decree, Haffner records, there was no visible "sign of revolution" - at least, not yet. "The law

violent shock, giving the Nazi Party an opportunity to seize total power under the pretext of "Protecting the Fatherland." That shock came less than a month after Hitler's first cabinet meeting, when, on February 27th, flames consumed a large section of Germany 's Reichstag (parliament) Build-

34

sented President Paul von Hindenburg with a draft executive order for protecting "the People and the State." Described as a "defensive measure against Communist acts of violence," the decree announced that in light of the terrorist attack on the Reichstag, "restrictions on personal liberty, on

courts sat and heard cases," he recalls. "At home, people were a little confused, a little anxious, and tried to understand what was happening." Haffner himself was among those relatively few Germans who understood the implications of President Hindenburg's decree. "I consider it a personal insult that I should be


prevented from reading whichever newspaper I wish, because allegedly a Communist set light to the Reichstag," he complained to a fellow lawyer. "Don' t you?" "No. Why should IT' replied Haffner's injudicious friend .

Besides Haffner, few Germans understood that the Nazis were using the terrorist strike as a steppingstone to total power. "Armed with these all-embracing powers, Hitler and Goering were in a position to take any action they pleased against their opponents," observed historian Alan Bullock in his 1953 book Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.

Following the Plan But the presidential decree was merely an overture. Hitler and his party were determined to ee their pre-positioned agenda for "Fatherland security" adopted. Following a speech by Hitler on March 23, 1933, about two months after the Reichstag fire, the German Parliament - unnerved by the public concern about a possible Communist terror campaign, and intimidated by mobs of Nazi stormtroopers -passed Hitler's Enabling Act. "Its five brief paragraphs took the power of legislation, including control of the Reich budget, approval of treaties with foreign states and the initiating of constitutional amendments, away from Parliament and handed it over to the Reich cabinet for a period of four years," wrote historian William Shirer in his study The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. While the Enabling Act explicitly permitted the Reich cabinet to enact laws that "might deviate from the constitution," it also specified that the powers of Parliament would be protected.

except the Nazi Party; by December of that year, all but 20 representatives in the Reichstag belonged to the Nazi Party. All of this was perfectly legal under the open-ended grant of power given to Hitler .' . through the Enabling Act.

"Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of [that] single law," observed Bul-

Hitler and his clique of degenerate criminals understood that the public mood might be altered by a sudden, violent shock, giving the Nazi Party an opportunity to seize power under the pretext of "Protecting the Fatherland ." That shock came when an arsonist largely destroyed Germany's Reichstag Building .

lock. "No National or Constitutional Assembly was called and the Weimar Constitution was never formally abrogated .... What Hitler aimed at was arbitrary power. It took time to achieve this , but from the first he had no intention of having his hands tied by a constitution .... " Unlike previous German chancellors, who had "been

Abolishing the States In his March 23rd address to the Reichstag, Hitler sought to placate those worried that the confederated German states (laender) would be absorbed into a centralized dictatorship: "The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away with." The Weimar Constitution recognized and

protected the sovereign powers of the various German laender. Each of the laender had separate elected assemblies, as well as independent police and judicial institutions.

Devoted to the modern political dogma called totalitarianism, Hitler condemned the confederated Weimar Republic and openly announced his intention to abolish it in favor of a centralized regIme. "National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must claim the right to enforce its doctrines without regard to present federal boundaries, upon the entire German nation ," he wrote in his 1925 manifesto Mein Kampf Once Hitler had absorbed the legislative powers of the German Reichstag, he and his cohorts targeted the laender for abolition as well, using decrees that -like the text of the Enabling Act -

~ had been prepared well in advance of ,§ the Nazi Party's rise to power. In his speech, Hitler promised that

his government "will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures." This was a lie, of course. Between 1933 and 1937, as Hitler's party consolidated control over Germany, the Reichstag would

... Even before the Reichstag passed A republic dies as German President Paul von Hindenburg appoints Adolf Hitler Reichschancelior. Hitler's pose of the Enabling Act, Hitler and Minis-patriotic humility concealed his involvement in a well ter of the Interior Wilhelm Frick organized conspiracy to turn Germany into a socialist moved to dissolve the state govern-police state. ments. Their first priority was to cen

tralize control over the police. Act-

pass only four laws, including the three uremberg Laws that imposed the

regime's odious racialist and anti-Semitic doctrines. On July 14, 1933, Hitler's cabinet enacted a law crirninalizing all parties


dependent on the President 's power to issue emergency decrees under article 48 of the constitution ... Hitler had that right for himself, with full power to set aside the constitution."

ing under the emergency decree issued the day after the Reichstag fire, Frick appointed Reich police commissars in Baden, Wurttemberg, and Saxony. Herman Goering, Prussian Minister of the Interior, was already bringing that critical re-

35

IN lIGHTOFTHE PAST

gion's police to heel. While centralizi ng control over

the police, the Nazi leadership liquidated the political leadership of the separate states. A week after passage of the Enabling Act, Hitler and Frick dissolved the diets (elected assemblies) of German states not already under Nazi control. A week after that Hitler nominated Reichstatthalter (Reich governors) over all German states; those officials had the power to rule by decree. The Reich governors "are not the administrators of the separate states, they execute the will of the supreme leadership of the Reich," Hitler later explained. "They do not represent the states over against the Reich, but the Reich over against the states ... . National Socialism has as its historic task to create the new Reich and not to preserve the Germall states."

the Fuhrer's will. Prior to fleeing Germany, Haffner worked as a Referendar, a law clerk and apprentice judge. He witnessed the Nazification of Germany's court system from the inside while working in Germahy's Supreme Court, in 1933. One of the Nazi Party's most effective tactics was to condemn strict constructionists of the Weimar Constitution, and insist that it be treated as a "living" document.

To justify unconstitutional actions taken by Hitler's government, Haffner writes, Nazi officials "produced unheard-of points of law in a fresh, confident voice. We Referendars, who had just passed our exams, exchanged [puzzled] looks .. .. " Nazi judges would insist that "the paragraphs of the law must yield precedence" and that "the meaning was more important than the letter of the law." Hitler's cabinet fulfilled that "his

toric task" with passage of the "Law for Reconstruction of the Reich" on January 31, 1934. The Reconstruction Law abolished the popular assemblies of the separate German states and decreed that "the sover-

Exchanging freedom for security: "Adolf Hitler will provide work and bread! " exclaims a 1932 Nazi campaign poster, borrowing a familiar Marxist theme. Weary of war, depression, and terrorism, many Germans were vulnerable to the deception.

Through a combination of threats, cajolery, and simple persistence, the Nazis wore down the resistance of the court that had once defied Fred-erick the Great by upholding a property claim made by a poor man who

eign powers of the laender are transferred to the Reich." The states' residual powers were eliminated with the abolition of the Reichsrat (Reich Council) - roughly equivalent to the original U.S. Senate -on February 14th.

The decentralized republic had now become a consolidated Reich, and Hitler's criminal oligarchy faced no opposition as it conducted its totalitarian campaign of Gleichschaltung - "coordination" of all areas of German life under Nazi Party control. This would require creating an apparatus to terrorize Germans into submission, as well as to identify and punish dissidents - a police state.

Nazifying the Courts With parliament securely in the hands of the Nazi Party and the powers of the independent states being assimilated, Hitler's cabal turned its attention on the judicial branch. Frustrated by Supreme Court verdicts that acquitted three of the four defendants accused of the assault on the Reichstag Building, the Nazis started to create Sondergerichte - special tribunals

36

controlled by the Party that answered to the Fuhrer. The most notorious of these tri bunals was the Volksgerichthof or "People's Court," also known as the "Blood Tribunal" because of the red robes worn by its judges.

Created by an April 24, 1934 decree, the tribunal was composed of "five members, not bound by legal technicalities ... appointed by the Chancellor," noted Frederick L. Schuman's 1935 book The Nazi Dictatorship. "Only the presiding officer and one judge would be regular judicial officials. The other three might be chosen from among persons 'with special experience in fighting off attacks directed against the State' " - a provision ensuring a majority faithful to the National Socialist Party. Additional decrees from Hitler's cabinet created remarkably elastic standards of "treason" used to criminalize criticism of the Nazi Party line. Those arraigned before the "Blood Tribunal" and other special tribunals had no right of appeal.

The Nazi regime also undertook a campaign to bend the nation's court systems to

owned a windmill Frederick sought to remove. At the same time, the Nazis sought to bring the rising generation of Referendars under the Party's control through the Association of National Socialist Lawyers. Haffner recalls that one day in 1933, after expressing a modest criticism of the regime, one of his colleagues warned him: "Skeptical comments are no use nowadays. You 're only digging your own grave. Don't fancy that there's anything to be done against the fascists now! Certainly not by open opposition .... We republicans must howl with the wolves."

Forging the Gestapo The Nazi wolf pack was led through careful planning, rather than simple predatory instinct. In March 1932, little less than a year before Hitler was appointed chancellor, a small group of Nazi leaders assembled at the Munich apartment of Ernst Roehm, the Brownshirts' militant homosexual leader. Among those at the gathering were Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels , and Rudolf Hess. Even prior to acquiring political power, the Nazi con-


spirators plotted the creation of a Geheim Staats Polizei, or "secret state police," which would pervert law enforcement into a tool intended to protect the Nazi elite and carry out its totalitarian designs.

"The [March 1932] meeting had been arranged by Roehm, who had been advised by Hitler that Goebbels would state the plans for the constitution of the new secret police," wrote Philip St. C. Walton-Kerr in his 1939 book Gestapo. "At this meeting, and at one which was also held at Roehm's apartment on the following evening, the constitution of the Gestapo was finally settled, and its activities divided into two parts, one devoted to affairs inside Germany, the other concerned with work outside the country." Rimmler was put in charge of the new department, which "would not, of course, be able to operate fully until the government was in Hitler's hands."

In early 1933, as the Nazi cabinet consolidated political control, "Himrnler incorporated in the Geheim Staats Polizei not only the existing State police departments, but also all the relevant bureaus of the Ministry of the Interior and that of Foreign Affairs," observed Walton-Kerr. Over the next few years, the Gestapo penetrated "into every branch of the national life ... by an army of spies, operating in every walk of life and among every class of people .... Brother was set to

sions and even liberty, of being torn away from home and relatives and friends; fear of the unknown and unexpected, of intimate friends no less than of strangers."

Himmler's power consolidation was completed on June 16, 1936, when "for the first time in German history, a unified police was established for the ' whole of the Reich ... and Rimmler was put in charge as Chief of the German police," wrote left-

ers of Germany from the Communist menace, they eagerly welcomed their supposed mortal enemies into the Nazi Party. Roehm boasted that he could transform the "reddest Communist" into a faithful National Socialist within a month. Historian Robert G. Waite not~s that these so-called "Beefsteak Nazis" - Brown outside, Red inside - "were particularly effective in the Gestapo and the SA [Brownshirts], where

they formed perhaps a third of the total membership."

The Brownshirts terrified the German public, and repelled conservative elements of the German elite whom Hitler needed to placate. The Wehrmacht, in particular, was hostile to Hitler's party because of the prevalence of perversion in the Brownshirts (and throughout the Nazi Party at large). General Walter von Brachitsch expressed the sentiments of a majority of his fellow officers when he referred to the Nazis as a "gang of homosexuals , thugs , and drunks." Furthermore, Roehm represented an abiding threat to Hitler's pre-eminence. Consequently, liquidating the Brownshirts was tactically sound from Hitler's

g? • "<= perspective. e « Thus in June 1934, Hitler accused ~ Roehm of plotting a "second revoluie' tion" against the Nazi State, and un~ leashed the Blackshirts to liquidate ~ Roehm and his cadres (as well as I

Brownshirt commander Ernst Roehm used his stormtroopers to foment terror and chaos. He also helped create the totalitarian "solution" to the problem of street violence - the Geheim Staats Polizei, or Gestapo.

spy on brother, wives on their husbands; bus conductors listened to and reported on passengers, postmen observed correspondence, friendly strangers in the cafes acted as agents provocateurs; school teachers questioned children, while selected children would trap their teachers. Employers [were required to] render secret reports on workmen, while being themselves subject to espionage by their secretaries, who in turn were being observed by planted office boys. Men and women everywhere had to walk warily, and give information quickly .... "

several prominent conservative politicians). This purge, known as the "Night of Long Knives," was au-thorized after the fact by a one-sentence law issued over Hitler's signature: "The measures taken on June

''The principal weapon of the Gestapo was never to be force, for that would be supplied by the Brownshirts - it would be Fear," Walton-Kerr continued. "Fear planted in the hearts of every man, woman, and child; fear of the sudden loss of posses-


leaning historian William Shirer. "This was tantamount to putting the police in the hands of the S.S . [Schutzstaffel, or Blackshirts] .... The Third Reich, as is inevitable in the development of all totalitarian dictatorships, had become a police state."

The S.S. gained ascendancy in 1934 due to its use in purging Roehm's Sturmabteilung (SA) or Brownshirts, the gathered scum of Germany's revolutionary underworld. During the Nazi rise to power, the Brownshirts served as revolutionary goads by providing "pressure from below" in the form of wanton criminal violence and terror. Although the Nazis posed as defend-

30 and July I and 2 to strike down the treasonous attacks are justifiable acts of selfdefense by the state."

Gun Grab Acting in the name of "self-defense by the state," the Nazi regime used civilian disarmament laws passed under the Weimar Republic to disarm its potential opposition. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms," Hitler pointed out. "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by

37


The German public, weary of war and terror, voted their approval of the Nazi dictatorship. One ballot, signed by a "Non-Aryan," contained the notation: "Since nothing has happened to me so far I vote 'Yes. ' " Those words are a suitable epitaph for every free society that has succumbed to a police state.

Ratifying the Reich Long before the London Times published that lament, the Nazis had consolidated political power. On August 2, 1934, six weeks after the purge, President '" Hindenburg died. On the same day, recounts Bullock, "the officers and men of the German Army took the oath

so doing." In 1920, as Communist insurrections

and nationalist counter-insurgencies raged across Germany, the Weimar government passed the "Law on the Disarmament

of allegiance . .. not to the Constitution, or to the Fatherland, but to Hitler personally": "I swear by God this holy oath - I will render unconditional obedience to the Fuehrer of the German

of the People," which banned civilian possession of "military-style weapons." Through a 1928 law, the Weimar Republic made anti-gun laws uniform throughout all German states, a violation of the federalist principles then in place.

The 1928 Weimar gun law made all civilian gun ownership "subject to police approval," observed constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. "This firearms control law was quite useful to the new government that came to power a half decade later." In fact, it wasn't until March 1938 - a full five years after Hitler's appointment as chancellor that the Nazis bothered to enact a gun law; the improvident measures adopted by the liberal Weimar Republic

« were more than adequate to the needs ~

president and chancellor. "By every appeal known to skillful politicians and with every argument to the contrary suppressed, [the Germans] were asked to make their approval unanimous," reported New York Times correspondent Frederick T. Birchall in a report published on August 20th. Nearly 90 percent of the German population approved "Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times."

The ascent of the Nazi Party, it must be recognized, was accomplished through carefully organized deception and facilitated by Germany's moral collapse. As late as 1930, Haffner recalled, Hitler and his co-conspirators were regarded as an

embarrassment. Common Germans considered

Hitler to be "thoroughly repellentthe pimp's forelock, the hoodlum's elegance ... the interminable speechifying, the epileptic behavior with its wild gesticulations and foaming at the mouth, and the alternately shifty and staring eyes .... No one would have been surprised if a policeman had taken him by the scruff of the neck in the middle of his first speech and removed him to some place from which he would never have emerged again, and where he doubtless belonged."

of Hitler's regime. Z L..Te-a-rs-o-f-an ..... gUiSh, not joy, moisten the cheeks of this On November 9, 1938, the twen- German woman as she dutifully renders a Nazi salute.

tieth anniversary of the Weimar Re- While many Germans were deceived by the Nazis, many public's founding, the Nazis un- others came to realize - too late - that a criminal leashed Kristallnacht ("Night of conspiracy, protected by a savage police state, had Broken Glass") - an anti-Jewish riot stolen their country from them.

Within a few short years, after hyperinflation and rampant moral decadence had ravaged Germany's national character, Hitler was successfully repackaged as a "respectable" defender of the middle class. But much of Germany's middle class never fully embraced the Fuhrer. Many among the dispirited German public, weary of war and terror and desperate for stability, ratified the Nazi dictatorship, and its attendant police state, on the assumption that its fearful powers would never be directed against them personally. One ballot noted by Bir-

conducted by mobs organized and controlled by the Party. Following that rampage, German Jews were disarmed and taken into "protective" custody - and the tragic end of that story is well known. A year later, the London Times noticed that Germany still displayed the occasional tremors of opposition to the Nazi regime, but lamented that under Hitler, "Civilians are disarmed, and [therefore] powerless ... . "

38

Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready, as a brave soldier, to stake my life at any time for this oath."

In a national plebiscite held 17 days later, the German public was also asked to pledge absolute obedience by approving the consolidation of the offices of

chall, signed by a person identifying himself as "Non-Aryan," contained the notation: "Since nothing has happened to me so far I vote 'Yes.' "

In those words of witless acquiescence to tyranny can be found a suitable epitaph for every free society that has succumbed to the institutionalized terror of a police state . •


FREEDOM FIGHT

JBS: Defending the Rule of Law Leading the Americanist cause for more than four decades, The John Birch Society uniquely understands the globalist conspiracy and how to win the battle to pres'erve freedom.

by G. Vance Smith

"T he people never give up their freedom except under some delusion," warned James Madi

son - and the father of our Constitution was right. The enemies of freedom are masters of delusion. And before the American public had absorbed the horrors of 9-11, freedom 's enemies began promoting the delusion that our Constitution, and the system of government it created, cannot adequately deal with our present crisis.

Immediately, opinion molders took up the refrain that "everything changed" on September 11,2001. Suddenly the American people, heirs to an unparalleled legacy of freedom under law, were being told that the question was not whether we would have to trade freedom for security, but how much freedom we would have to surrender. Spokesmen from a supposedly conservative Republican administration insist that the president must be given open-ended powers to declare and wage war abroad, and to imprison people without trial at home. These demands are echoed in the pages of "conservative" publications and over the airwaves on "conservative" radio and television talk shows, while liberal politicians and pundits offer partisan dissent.

The truth is missing almost entirely from this carefully orchestrated false debate. Our present predicament resulted from our government's persistent violation of its constitutionally prescribed role. Over the course of decades, a corrupt ruling elite controlling our federal government has entangled our nation in scores of bitter foreign quarrels, making enemies willing to enlist in suicidal terrorist campaigns against our nation. That same elite has used our tax dollars, in the form of foreign aid , to support the foreign regimes sponsoring and organizing international terrorism. And at the same time, our nation's

Mr. Smith is chief e.xecllfive officer of The John Birch

Society.


To protect and serve: The state and local law enforcement officers serving in thousands of local pol ice departments protect us not only against common street criminals, but also against a far greater danger: criminals who would centralize power in government. Local , independent police, beholden to the communities they serve, are a bu lwark against tyranny.

borders have been thrown open and our population left shockingly vulnerable to attack.

How has this happened? Part of it is due to the natural tendency of all human institutions to decay as a result of human corruptibility. But our nation 's decline has been too dramatic and too systematic to be the result of natural erosion. We are dealing with an organized, deliberate effort to destroy the constitutional protections and institutional layers of strength that have protected our freedom and prosperity - in a word, a conspiracy.

British statesman Edmund Burke observed: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." This is the vision behind The John Birch Society, which Robert Welch created in December 1958 to dispel the delusions promoted by freedom's enemies and to champion freedom.

Because this is not merely a "war of ideas ," but rather a death struggle agai nst an organized cabal seeking total power, Mr. Welch created the Society as a means of providing organized leadership. The JBS exists to help freedom-loving Americans understand, confront, and defeat the conspiratorial threat to all that we cherish. Too many Americans, still shocked by the 9-11 attack and deliberately led astray by the "leaders" chosen for them by the Establishment, do not understand that the ominous growth of an American police state we see today is an outgrowth of a long-exi sting conspiratorial campaign -and that, with the proper leadership, that campaign can be defeated.

Visionary Leadership Although members of The John Birch Society have fought the battle against totalitarianism on many fronts during our almost 44-year history, experience taught

41

FREEDOM FIGHT

working police are the best

The John Birch Society is holding the line friends everywhere, of antiCommunists like ourselves, because they constantly run up against all of the dirty tactics of the Communists, and of the dupes and allies of the Corriiimnists, in their respective areas."

against the drive to turn our beloved nation into a totalitarian police state. We need the help of dedicated patriot-volunteers willing to work and sacrifice on behalf of liberty. We invite you to join us in this epic endeavor. Mr. Welch understood

that a well-entrenched con-

Mr. Welch that two fronts in the freedom fight are especially critical. One front is fought in the domestic arena - the other in the international. Both consist of exposing and opposing the conspiratorial drive to build a national and (eventually) global police state.

The essential role of government is to protect the rights and property oflaw-abiding citizens. This is why local law enforcement - police departments, county sheriffs, and state police - are critical bulwarks safeguarding our freedom. In a free country, those who enforce the law are not agents of the central government, but of the local citizens to whom they are immediately accountable. Ordinary citizens in such societies look on policemen with respect and gratitude. In totalitarian dictatorships, police exist to defend the regime against its subjects, provoking fear and suspicion. This is why our Constitution recognizes that law enforcement is 'almost exclusively a state and local responsibility.

In 1963, Mr. Welch introduced the "Support Your Local Police" (SYLP) program as an ongoing action campaign of The John Birch Society. At the time, many observers found this decision puzzling: Dido ' t everyone support their local police? What possible value was there in a "motherhood-and-apple pie" campaign on behalf of the police? Such observers didn't understand that Mr. Welch had an uncanny ability - based on careful study of history and current developments - to project the lines and anticipate future threats.

"The Communists know, as the American people do not, that the city and community police forces now constitute one of the most important remaining obstacles to the gradual, insidious, and at first invisible, establishment of the mechanics of their Communist police state," wrote Mr. Welch in the July 1963 JBS Bulletin. "The local

42

spiracy seeking total power would eventually work to discredit our nation's independent local police agencies and bring them under central government control. Two years after Mr. Welch introduced the SYLP program, the Watts riots erupted in Los Angeles, inaugurating a campaign of urban unrest that included the Vietnam-era "anti-war" riots on college campuses and in the streets of many U.S. cities.

While street terrorism in the form of destructive urban riots convulsed our cities, the same revolutionary apparatus (the Communist Party, USA and its allies) that fomented the violence launched a second thrust in the form of a campaign to create "civilian police review boards." This innocuous name was intended to spread " delusion b implying that our police are not already under civilian control. Under state constitutions and state and local laws, all of our police agencies come under civilian authority. The subversives sought to establish "civilian review boards" dominated by their own activists, appointed by left-wing politicians, to handcuff, subvert, and then take over, law enforcement.

During the 1960s, the SYLP campaign consisted of many battles fought from coast to coast against efforts to create leftwing civilian review boards. One of its most impressive victories came in N~vember 1966, when voters in New York City overwhelmingly rejected a civilian police review board measure in a citywide referendum. The groundwork for this important victory had been laid by New York SYLP committees and by policemen who were proud members of The John Birch Society.

Above and Below While other observers understood the radical left's assault on our police departments, Robert Welch saw and explained

the bigger picture. "Next to the Communists, the greatest enemy of our local police forces is the federal government, with its proffered grants-in-aid, training programs, guidelines, and other means of molding these local forces into components of a ~ational gestapo," he wrote in the February 1971 JBS Bulletin. "The most important job of our Support Your Local Police Committees has now become to keep our local police independent of the federal controls which inevitably follow such subsidization." (Emphasis in original.)

Drawing on his vast study of the longstanding campaign to subvert law enforcement, Mr. Welch noted that urban violence and terrorism, from the 1886 Haymarket Square riot to the urban riots that punctuated the 1960s, "were the result of plotting and agitation, by professional revolutionaries , on behalf of their bosses at the top." He further pointed out: "These bosses were not themselves even recognized as revolutionaries , and certainly were not downtrodden. They belonged to the very top, financial, social, political, and educational circles of the respective countries."

These "silk hat revolutionaries" - operating out of such redoubts as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and other similar bastions of the one-world elite - have principally led the concerted attack on America's local police. As Mr. Welch observed, "The discontent, turmoil, and insurrection at the bottom was only one of many methods by which this top Inner Circle was, with only selfish aims in mind, gaining ever more power for itself."

But Mr. Welch understood that civilian review boards were not the only route being pursued by those seeking to subvert our police agencies. In 1967, he warned that these forces "have now turned to 'training ' of local police forces, financed by grants of money from the central government. Even the Supreme Court has admitted (or decreed) that whatever the federal government subsidizes, it controls."

Fast-forwarding to 2002, we see the Bush administration using the exact same tactic as it ladles out federal subsidies to state and local police agencies in the name of "Homeland Security." This is merely an updated version of a drive begun in the 1960s under the Law Enforcement Assis-


tance Administration (LEAA), created as part of the Nixon administration 's "war on crime" by a cluster of officials who had backgrounds in the Ford Foundation and the CFR.

While crime-weary Americans and overworked police officials initially welcomed the LEAA, the program's true purpose was to accelerate the drive for a centralized police system. In a candid moment, LEAA Associate Administrator Clarence Coster revealed the organization 's true agenda, telling a meeting of police chiefs that American police must be nationalized: "Today, in this country, we have 40,235 law enforcement agencies , ranging from one-man departments to ew York City, with more than 40,000 police officers. This many units form a completely ungovernable body."

"Ungovernable" by whom? Everyone of those police agencies was accountable to state, county, or city governments, and to the communities in which they served. But what Coster meant was that they weren ' t governed by Washington, D.C. and couldn' t be outside of the control of a central, national police agency. Coster's unguarded comment validated the warning by Robert Welch in the March 1974 JBS Bulletin: "Your federal government is still doing everything it dares, as rapidly as it dares, to establish a mammoth national police force that is ultimately responsible to nobody except the President of the United States."


Where patriots fell: The heroes of United Flight 93 mounted a desperate counter-attack that may have saved thousands of lives. "Are you guys ready? Let's roll! " declared Beamer as he led the charge. Tributes now stand in the rural Pennsylvania field where those patriots fell. The nation that produced those heroes is worth fighting to save.

Largely because the JBS exposed the true purpose of the LEAA, that embryonic national police agency was abolished in 1983. That threat has now re-emerged in a more potent form in the proposed Department of Homeland Security - but as our experience with the LEAA illustrates, that · threat can be defeated through principled, organized effort. .

Battling Terrorism The JBS campaign to expose international terrorism began in the late 1960s, and was carried out in tandem with an effort to preserve our multi-layered, constitutionally sound internal security system. Mr. Welch understood that just as the threat of domestic unrest was being used to advance the consolidation of police power in the U.S. central government, international terrorism would be used to consolidate police power in the United Nations and in other international agencies . Once again, his foresight has been sadly vindicated: The U - "terror central" - has been given the role of directing the global "war on terrorism," and the Bush administration is actually coordinating its domestic counterterrorism efforts through the UN.

In the January 1978 John Birch Society Bulletin, Mr. Welch warned that the architects of a UN-dominated world order "are giving special aid and attention to the use everywhere abroad today of the one most powerful weapon, namely terrorism, for consolidating Communist power over any area where infiltration, treason, and diplo-

matic pressures have already prepared the way."

In country after country, "the use of terrorism has long since proved to be the most effective means breaking the will to resist on the part of any people ... and of then tightening all the features of that bondage as rapidly as fear, despair, or helplessness ·make it practicable to do so," wrote Mr. Welch.

Let's March! While the task at hand is formidable, it is achievable. From Valley Forge to United Flight 93, Americans have displayed the resolution and courage to do what is necessary to defend liberty. But these traits do. not spontaneously coalesce into determined, productive action. George Washington 's insight and character rallied the Continental Army to victory over the British. Todd Beamer's prayerful leadership and defiant battle cry "Let's Roll! " made possible a desperate counter-attack that may have saved the lives of thousands of Americans. Beamer and his fellow patriot-heroes drew a line in the sky that said: Evil stops here.

Inspired by such examples, and guided by principles laid down by our founder, the JBS is holding the line against the drive to tum our beloved nation into a totalitarian police state. We need the help of dedicated patriot-volunteers willing to work and sacrifice on behalf ofliberty. We invite you to join us in this epic endeavor . •

43

THE~WORD

What Can Be Done by Wi II iam F. Jasper

T he September 11th attacks showed how vulnerable America has become to terrorism and how urgent it is to revamp our national secu

rity. Over the past three decades, our nation's multilayered system of internal security has been dangerously eroded by subversives bent on destroying our critical defenses. One after another, America's investigative bodies and internal security assets were weakened, shackled, or terminated altogether.

The following list of terminated security entities gives some idea of how greatly the subversives ' campaign has succeeded: the Subversive Activities Control Board; the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department; the House Internal Security Committee; the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee; the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations; the investigative committees of most state legislatures; the intelligence units of most state police agencies.

The intelligence units of most metropolitan police departments have also been

The answer to terrorism lies not in granting Gestapo-like police powers to the federal government but in restoring legitimate internal security measures and ending self-defeating policies.

terminated, or redirected away from keeping information on the subversive groups and individuals who support terrorist groups. In addition, other key components of our national security have been emasculated or diverted from what should be their primary

objectives. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, for instance, despite recent augmentation, remain overwhelmed and undermanned. They are also severely restricted in ways that prevent them from enforcing our borders and immigration laws. The FBI has been for many years largely restricted from investigating left-wing subversion and terrorism, and reoriented toward investigating "white collar" crime and a huge new federal criminal code that usurps many of the police functions of state and local governments.

We have been left naked, without needed protection. As a result, our police and intelligence forces failed to detect and deter the terrorist acts of September 11 tho This has led to the pendulum swinging back to the opposite extreme. In the wake of the attacks, the calls for giving Gestapo-like powers to the federal government have been deafening. Such measures, though, are neither constitutional nor necessary. What America must do instead is rebuild the constitutional, multilayered internal security structures at federal , state, and local levels. It is also essential that we end our self-defeating policy of foreign intervention,

44

which engenders hatred toward the United States and guarantees a steady recruitment of terrorists to the ranks of those who want to destroy us.

We must abandon immediately and completely our suicidal "partnership" with state sponsors of terrorism. In the 1980s, terrorist experts such as former CIA Deputy Director of Intelligence Ray Cline, investigative reporter Claire Sterling, Congressman Larry McDonald, and Senator Jeremiah Denton pointed out a crucial but "politically incorrect" fact: There really are no significant stand-alone terrorists; all members of the Terror Club International received

funding and direction from Russia, China, Cuba, and their subcontractors: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, et al. This is no less true today, and should be remembered when considering the so-called Islamic fundamentalist groups, which function as deniable assets for their state sponsors.

Representatives Larry McDonald, John Ashbrook, and some of their House colleagues carried out a valiant campaign in the 1970s and 1980s to rebuild our internal security. Their campaign included efforts to reform our immigration laws and pass legislation to reestablish the House Internal Security Committee (HISC). Because of its power of subpoena and ability to publish reports , the HISC had been an essential weapon in the battle for national security and survival. It could compel the production of documents and witnesses and make vital information available to the public. A restored and vigilant HISC would be a valid solution today.

Other measures that would strengthen national security include: • Correcting immigration policies that make it virtually im

possible to deport "legal" terrorists. • Providing sufficient manpower and funding to protect our

borders. • Instituting full top-down security checks of all U.S. military

and security personnel, and all cabinet officials. • Reestablishing credible security measures at our weapons

laboratories and military installations. • Reversing the federal takeover of local law enforcement. • Reestablishing intelligence units in city police departments. • Reversing the FBI and CIA alliances with the police-state

organizations of Russia, China, and other totalitarian regimes. • Reestablishing investigative committees of state legislatures. • Getting out of the United Nations, a Trojan Horse on Amer

ican soil for terrorists and other foreign enemies. Like the people of Troy, we have foolishly opened our gates

to the enemy. And our enemies - foreign and domestic - have surged in to advance their terrorist agendas against the United States. There is, however, still time to save our country, if American citizens throw themselves into this battle with all of the determination that these dire circumstances demand . •


'''Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world .... "

- George Washington (1796)

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

- ThomasJefferson (1 799)

" { deem (one of) the essential principles of our government (to be) peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none .... "

- ThomasJefferson (1801)

PRISM MANAGEMENTCOMPANY,INCORPOKATED

PRISM: Any medium that resolves a seemingly simple matter into its elements

CONSULTANTS AND ACTUARIES Specializing in Tax Deductions for Dental Practices

Post Office Box 7007 • Porter Ranch, CA 91327

the rising police state - the new american magazine oct-7-2002

News & Politics