Journalists are now considered terrorists

By Disclosure staff

Far too many people, especially in pockets of the United States where biased and controlled mainstream media (MSM) have lulled citizens into a false sense of security, are either oblivious to or support fully the PATRIOT (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act. The most dissent these common folk are exposed to regarding the PA might be a smattering of commercials on cable or satellite news channels funded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In these, a vague list of 'civil liberties'� (read: civil rights per the Constitution of the US) is intoned by concerned citizens, and it is pointed out that several of our Constitutional rights, primarily concerning rights to privacy, are being eroded by the PA.

People who consider themselves true 'patriots'� swallow the pure crap of the PA hook, line and sinker because they don't want 'them Ay-rabs'� flying any more planes into American buildings. However, these diehards, as well as people who simply avoid thinking of such a broad-impact law as the PA and its even more insidious PA II, would do well to perform a little research into just what these Acts mean for US citizens. Short of that, it is up to the media to disclose the 'fine print'� of the law'and if they're not doing that, they're part of the problem, and they're playing right into the hands of such insane lawmakers as now-former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who apparently saw himself as the editor of our most precious document'the Constitution.

How it got passed In a move that was kept extremely low-key in most MSM because of the chaos that surrounded the days following 9/11, the PA (which apparently was either very hastily or already drafted, the latter having its own insidious connotations'¦) was passed a mere 45 days after 9/11, then announced by Ashcroft that it was in effect, as if this Act were going to cure all our terrorism woes. Forty-five days. Awful quick, considering how sluggishly most bills move through the process of legislation. What is key here are these two important facts: no member of Congress was allowed to see the PA before its passage, and no debate was held or even entertained by the House and Senate leaders. Further, it later became known to (but not widely disseminated by) most media outlets that Dick Cheney's strong-arming of Congress to pass the PA was indeed fact. He did indeed publicly threaten members of Congress to pass the 'confidential' bill, about which they knew literally nothing, telling them 'If you don't vote in favor of this, you'll be the ones blamed for the next terrorist attack.' This remark was made known to media several months after it was made, and, not surprisingly, by Democratic members of Congress, whose comments, also not surprisingly, were viewed as merely 'partisan politics'� in advance of the next presidential election campaign.

Interestingly, Cheney's remarks and the way they were used fit the White House's own definition of 'terrorism'� and is an offense worthy of impeachment. But far be it from that to happen; the crafters of the PA made certain that there was language in the document that protected the authorities who create and enforce it. Succinctly put: Cheney is broadly protected by 'civil immunity,'� that annoying little nuisance that keeps corrupt political and law enforcement officials in office.

Defining a terrorist With a copy of the PA in front of you, unless you are an attorney or have legal training, reading it becomes a chore because of all the jumbled legalese. That's exactly what Ashcroft, an attorney from, of all places, Missouri, and the talking heads whose chains he was yanking wanted it to be.

At first blush, Title I, 'enhancing domestic security against terrorism,'� sounds like a fine thing'until you begin to realize that even if you're not an Ay-rab 'terrorist,'� and merely a person who abides by the Constitution and questions the subversion of it, you can be declared a 'terrorist'� and every single one of the provisions of the PA can be applied to you. Basically, according to the PA, any crime or even the possibility of the commission thereof can be considered terrorism. That means that if any law enforcement, local, state or federal, has the slightest notion that you could be viewed as any kind of threat to the 'security' of anyone or anything, you, yes, you, can be considered an 'enemy combatant' and subject to all the loss of freedoms such nasties endure. This includes but is not limited to wiretapping (your phone and email), surveillance (with night vision goggles or 'thermal imaging devices,' those special little doo-dads West Salem's excuse for a cop JJ McVaigh is so fond of, especially the latter, which he touts as using 'to detect people trapped inside burning buildings.' This is laughable'anyone with sense would know that heat signatures from a human inside a burning building would be overridden by the heat from the fire), and a complete search of any records of any kind you've ever amassed'IRS, business, banking, educational, organizational affiliations and much, much more.

But HIPAA protects me, right? This includes medical records. What, you thought HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, first enacted in 1996 but for some reason made a big deal of a year after 9/11) was there to 'protect'� you? Wrong! Read the 'fine print,'� also known as 'reading between the lines,'� something you must become good at in this post-9/11 world. Nowadays, HIPAA is not being used for what it was designed to do, which was to create a 'portable'� database, or records, so that if you moved around a lot or from job to job, you could take your records with you. Here are the lines, and how to read between them: 'Your health information cannot be used or shared without your written permission unless this law allows it. To make sure that your information is protected'� (note the disclaimer here) 'in a way that does not interfere with your health care'� (italics ours'¦and anyway, who's going to define that law enforcement 'looking' at your medical records 'interferes with your health care'?), your information can be used and shared'¦'� among other things, 'to protect the public's health, such as by reporting when the flu is in your area.'� Oh. How kind of them. It's just that when 'the public's health'� might be endangered for some other reason, such as suspecting you are a 'terrorist'� and may have access to a biological or chemical weapon, viola! They can come in and view your records. Or, try this one on: 'To make required reports to the police, such as reporting gunshot wounds.'� What's wrong with this is that what is 'required to be reported to the police,'� or FBI, or CIA, or a combination thereof, may vary from time to time depending upon how they view you, the possible 'terrorist.'� If they think you are helping fund terrorist activity by trafficking drugs, for example, 'the police'� (feds, CIA etc.) may periodically 'check'� your medical records to see if you are exhibiting signs of drug use or addiction. If you're not supporting terrorist activity but you happen to be a user of recreational pharmaceuticals, and the local law enforcement can detect that on your medical records, you're going to be targeted, surveilled, tapped and eventually busted, which you should be, but not at the expense of destroying Constitutional rights handed down to all of us well over two hundred years ago. Now, it's all in the name of the PATRIOT Act despite the Fourth Amendment, which requires that law enforcement bust you in a fair way'by good police work.

Let's boil this down a little further, a little more mainstream. If you suffer excruciating pain from debilitating rheumatoid arthritis, and your doc prescribes you oxycontin, that's going to be on your records. However, if you live in a little town where there happens to be a whole lotta oxycontin being trafficked, you could be a suspect, and a check of that town's residents' medical records will back it up. That, folks, is how HIPAA can be used; and that is not a 'protection'� of your records! But you signed that form before they could treat you, didn't you? And if you didn't, the kind receptionist wrote down that you 'refused to sign.'� And don't think that didn't make you a target for people looking to use the PATRIOT Act to the fullest.

Comes PATRIOT II Then in early 2003, we had an even more vile piece of filth and excrement called the 'Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003,'� aka PATRIOT II, shoved down the throats of our ever-oblivious US Congress. Thanks in part to the ACLU and Constitutional scholars across the country, the full text of this piece of crap was made available through the Center for Public Integrity (a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC) on Feb. 7, 2003. Fortunately for all of us, the Center, like Disclosure, has friends in high places who are willing to leak information to them, and that is how the 87-page bill became publicly known despite our dictatorial-wannabe heads of state.

The leak was a sensation, because the bill was labeled 'Confidential'Not for Distribution'� and handed to certain heads of state'not to the entirety of Congress for review'just like the first PA. The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs itself later revealed that it had indeed 'covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to the Speaker of the House,'� Illinois' own fruitcake republican congressman Dennis Hastert, 'and to the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, as well as the executive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.'� Constitutional scholars claim that, whereas PA I 'only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and Tenth, PA II reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. 'The second PATRIOT Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.'�

What they want to consider 'illegal'� We could devote an entire issue of Disclosure to what civil rights and liberties the PA II can demolish. Due to space constraints, only a few will be considered. Please research the act in any way you can in order to understand its devastating implications in the name of 'Homeland Security.'� One provision of the act, however, strikes a little too close to home here at Disclosure. Section 102 states clearly that any 'information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal,'� can be considered 'clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power.'� This makes news gathering illegal. It also jeopardizes those whose hobby is historical research, say, for genealogy purposes, and any others who search public databases for any reason'probate, land transactions, purposes of insurance, etc. Other abominations in this act include disallowing individuals or organizations to try to quash a Federal subpoena, so that defending yourself will be a terrorist action; allowing corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials (PSI should love that); granting government agents full immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval, effectively abandoning Fourth Amendment 'unreasonable searches and seizures'� protections; and allowing courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others, thereby annihilating the Fifth Amendment.

Most frighteningly, Section 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember, folks: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first PA. And to cap it all off, Section 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that 'any terrorist act or support of terrorist act'� (or, any crime, which can include speeding, not wearing your seatbelt, or our personal favorite, shutting off your water at the main meter outside your house because a pipe burst and your floors are being flooded) can result in the death penalty. Folks, this piece of legislative trash passed stealthily a year ago this week, Dec. 13, 2003, on the day Saddam Hussein was captured. On the very day we were all watching goat-boy's head being combed for lice, we were all oblivious to the fact that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe our financial records, even if we aren't suspected of being involved in crime or terrorism.

What can we do? Call your legislators. Both 'PATRIOT'� Acts can be repealed. Above all, we can't be afraid to assert our Constitutional rights as American citizens. It is imperative that the freedoms we enjoy be preserved by those who represent us. But they can't know how appalled we are by this subversion until we act. Know your rights, call your congressmen, and let them know you know. Stop being sheeple: sheep dogs bark, sheep jump. We can't do that. Otherwise, one of these days, when you've just finished looking up the names of Aunt Flossie's great-grandmamas, someone's gonna drive up to you in a black Suburban, slap the cuffs on you, and you'll never be heard from again.

Sound far-fetched, ridiculous, too 'out there'�? Surely our government wouldn't do that to us, now would they? That's what German Jews thought in 1939, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------