July 03, 2006

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government... -from The Declaration of Independence, A Transcription, National Archives and Records Administration

Indulge me here, folks, I'm just celebrating the Fourth of July, you know, "America's Holiday," the official day the Declaration of Independence was signed by the founders, declaring their independence from repressive government.

And now, moving right along - - -

Polls have consistently shown that, being the macho folks we apparently are, we Americans don't care if the U.S. Government listens in on our phone conversations, spies on our e-mails, and/or secretely black-bags our domiciles, frames some of us, and now, peeks over our shoulders at our bank accounts. Even if "the government" breaks its own laws doing it -- and doesn't really have to. [1]

After all, despite Ben Franklin's quip that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," what's a loss of "essential liberty" and less privacy -- as long as "the government" provides us a "little temporary safety?"

And we know "it" does because just two weeks ago, V.P. Dick Cheney told us so -- and he would never tell a lie! And after all, we haven't been attacked by these dastardly terrorists since 911 -- except in Iraq, of course. Have we? [2]

Well, for the sake of argument, let's concede the point and then ask, "Why not?" Has it been the government that's given us "a little temporary safety?" For what it's worth, my answer is a resounding and thunderous, "NO!!!"

How can I write such a thing when we apparently haven't been attacked for over four and a half years? Well, to start with, I mostly listen to experts like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Desert Storm General Norman Schwartzkopf, and Time's Man of the Year and New York City's mayor Rudolph Giuliani, - - -

"Short of closing down America and closing down the city of New York, it would be impossible to entirely prevent terrorism." -Mayor Rudy Giuliani, quoted by Brian Jenkins, CNN Live, 19 Feb. 1998, 2:04pm

"There is no way to stop a dedicated terrorist who is willing to pay the price." -Desert Storm General Norman Schwartzkopf, Ret., MSNBC, 8 Aug 1998, ~11:04:34 AM EDT

Why not?

"The asymmetrical advantage a terrorist has is that he can strike any place at any time, using any conceivable method of attack, and this is impossible to defend against." -U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, CNN Late Edition, May 26, 2002, 13:05:16

"If we had to protect everything all the time, we simply couldn't do it." -Colorado Governor Bill Owens, CNBC, July 3, 2002, 19:31:50

"It's impossible to have a police officer every place. That would be unrealistic and it would change the nature of a free society." -ibid. Mayor Rudy Giuliani

In fact, if we followed Rudy Giuliani's self-nixed prescription of having "a police officer every place," and thus "change the nature of [our] free society," clearly even that wouldn't do the job - - -

Unknown bomber(s) explode a bomb near Wall Street, blowing the front windows out of a building during a nearby police anti-terrorist exercize. -CNN HLN, 11-09-97, ~4:08pm EST

Still skeptical? It's good to be skeptical these days -- because even our much vaunted "free press" -- especially the U.S. Corporate media part of it -- is now part of former U.S. President (and five-star general) Dwight David Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" -- which he warned us against in his farewell address. [3] This means we don't exactly get the unvarnished truth on the 6 O'clock news.

If you want to see the details that pretty much prove we aren't being protected, you can find them here, here and here. And you can find the true value of the Bush Administration's unconstitutional and illegal NSA spying program in The Silly Truth About NSA Spying: Short & Sweet.

And remember how well the government protected us from Hurricane Katrina -- and that troublingly, unlike the situation with those who "can strike any place at any time," Uncle Sam knew exactly where it was going to strike -- and when.

How well did he do?

It's clear that the "little temporary safety" we get in return for our "essential liberty" is very little indeed.

Which brings us to the "I'm-spying-on-you" for the current week -- you know, prying into your bank records -- even more than usual. But now recall the NSA spying loophole -- namely, that to avoid NSA surveillance, currently any resident "terrorists" can just subscribe to Vonnage, Skype, Wengophone, etc. and talk to each other using only these services. They can also use PGP or GPG encryption, thus completely avoiding Big Brother.

The same sort of thing goes for spying on our bank accounts. The "terrorists" stopped using U.S. banking channels years ago, probably well before 911. And they weren't the only ones. You would too if you had your assets frozen because you had a disagreement with the D.C. mercantalist oligarchs. This freezing of assets became common practice back in the 1980s.

Heck, even most drug dealers know to avoid U.S. banks: Google "FINCEN". That's short for "Financial Crimes Enforcement Network." You'll find approximately 350,000 hits. Not exactly secret, now, is it? Then why did the Bush Administration make such a fuss when the New York Times did a story on such programs?

But, if the "terrorists" don't use our banks, how do they transfer money? They use alternative banking methods which leave no paper trail. This is done through the Hawala system, the granddaddy of all banking institutions -- which is still alive and well and living all over the world. And they don't need all that much money -- for example it's estimated that while the 911 attacks may have cost as much as $500,000 [4] - - -

...the Madrid bombings of 2004 are believed to have cost no more than $15,000, and last year's London attacks perhaps $2,000. Why terror financing is so tough to track down By Mark Rice-Oxley, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, March 08, 2006 edition

So, what's the point of spying on our bank transactions -- and trying to keep the fact you're doing it from "we the people?"

Can you spell I.R.S.?

The same "why spy" question arises with the phone tapping and black bag work done under the NSA program. When you cobble all these basically worthless programs together, worthless that is for catching any but the most inept terrorists, what you discover is that they are the reincarnation of the "Total Information Awareness" program, supposedly defunded by Congress in 2003 because it looked too much like the mother of all police states -- even, apparently, to all us Ben Franklin deniers.

That's another reason why it may be appropriate here on the 4th of July to recall our founding documents.

Notes:

[1] Why doesn't the Bush Administration simply use the special but secret FISA court as a rubber-stamp for spying. According to NSA insider Russell Tice, the FISA court has rejected only five of over 20,000 requests to spy -- and now allows 72 hours -- just upped from 48 -- before the NSA would even have to advise the FISA court of a wire tap. Even ex NSA head and legendary spook General Bobby Ray Inman says Bush needlessly breaks the law by side-stepping FISA. return

[2] Those multiple simulntaneous brush fires in California, the anomalous pre-911 flight 800 shoot-down, the bombing of the Northwest U.S. high voltage tower which caused a power outage all over the west coast, numerous suspicious train derailings all across the country, etc., suggest to some "probing attacks," characteristic of what some avant garde military thinkers call "Fourth Generation Warfare." return

[3] In his farewell address, Ike warned about "the military-industrial complex" and that it created "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power" which "exists and will persist." In an original draft of the speech, he implicated congress too, calling it the military-industrial-congressional complex. He clearly understood the economic factors that have led to the 27,000 paid lobbyists prowling the halls of government, seeking special favors for their well-heeled corporate employers, paid for by your tax money. return

[4] Interestingly, the 911 attacks may have been financed by use of conventional banking. But not necessarily the way you would think. It seems there was the matter of $100,000 dollars wired to purported head hijacker Mohammed Atta on the orders of General Mahmoud Ahmed, head of Pakistan's ISI, daughter organization and puppet of our own CIA. Far out -- maybe even in tinfoil hat range? Maybe, but you can decide for yourself. Check it out in The Pakistan connection, Michael Meacher, Thursday July 22, 2004, in The Guardian. Mr. Meacher is a former British Cabinet Minister and current Member of Parliament. return

L. Reichard White lives several houses up from the site of the old Black Horse Tavern, a birth place of the Whiskey Rebellion -- which explains a lot. He supported his writing habit for over 30 years by beating casinos at their own games. Visit his website at NEXIALIST NEWS See a key chapter from his latest project, "The Hi-jacking of Civilization" -- which has almost nothing at all to do with 9-11.

Archives

The PLAN?

The 87 Billion Dollar Question

Protected My Ass -- The Sequel: Attacked By The Clowns

The Only Way to Make Your Vote Count

Greetings from Falluja

Daddy, Daddy!

The BIG Picture

Immigration Solved: Short & Sweet

The Silly Truth About NSA Spying: Short & Sweet

The Handschu Scam:Short & Sweet