It Can't Happen Here
In 2002 I asked my House
colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government
growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police
state?
The question is no
longer rhetorical. We are not yet
living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our
basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create
whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the
expense of our liberty. But
security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members
of Congress, like too many Americans, don't understand that a society with no
constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments
become more powerful than the people and private institutions.
Unfortunately, the new
intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an
encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID
card. Within two years, every
American will need a "conforming" ID to deal with any federal agency--
including TSA at the airport.
Undoubtedly many
Americans and members of Congress don't believe America is becoming a police
state, which is reasonable enough. They
associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like
military patrols, martial law, and summary executions.
But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny
by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and
more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security.
Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate
intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago.
We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a
manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged
individualism. American history, at
least in part, is a history of people who don't like being told what to do.
Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents
to run our lives.
Terror, fear, and
crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when
citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people.
The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and
necessary. Many citizens believe
that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be
reversed. But this war is
undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final
goal. Terrorism will never be
eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert
extraordinary war powers indefinitely?
Washington DC provides
a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal
detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs,
ID checks, and vehicle stops. The
people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns.
Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway
travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's
not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not
complain-- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.
After all, proponents
argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don't have anything to hide, they ask, what are you
so afraid of? The answer is that
I'm afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should
hold dear. I'm afraid of creating
a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than
on government to prove wrongdoing. Most
of all, I'm afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace
surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.
It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.
Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.
By
SIBEL EDMONDS
Former
FBI translator
On Tuesday, July 6, 2004, Judge Reggie Walton made a decision and ruled on my case. Under his ruling, I, an American citizen, am not entitled to pursue my 1st and 5th Amendment rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. The vague reasoning cited, without any explanation, is to protect "certain diplomatic relations for national security." Judge Walton reached this decision after sitting on this case with no activity for almost two years. He arrived at this decision without allowing my attorney and I any due process: NO status hearing, NO briefings, NO oral argument, and NO discovery. He made his decision after allowing the government attorneys to present their case to him, privately, in camera, ex parte; we were not allowed to participate in these cozy sessions.
Is this the American system of justice we believe in? Is this the due process we read about in our Civics 101 courses? Is this the judicial branch of our government that is supposed to be separate from the other two branches in order to protect the people's rights and freedom?
This court decision by itself would have been appalling and alarming enough, but in light of all other actions taken against my case for the past two years it demonstrates a broken system, a system abused and corrupted by the current executive, a system badly in need of repair.
Under this broken system the attorney general of the United States is being allowed to illegally gag the United States Congress regarding my case. And even worse, the United States Congress is readily complying with this illegal gag.
Under this broken system the attorney general of the United States is being allowed to hinder ongoing investigations such as those of the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ-Inspector General.
Under this broken system the Attorney General of the United States is getting away with interfering and tampering with pending cases under the judicial process, such as my court cases and the lawsuit by the 9/11 victim families.
John Ashcroft's relentless fight against me, my information, and my case, on various fronts, from the Congress to the courts, and from the 9/11 Commission to the Inspector General's Office, has been taking place under his attempt at a vague justification titled "Protecting Certain Foreign and Diplomatic Relations for National Security."
On September 11, 2001, 3,000 lives were lost. Yet this administration has hindered all past and on going investigations into the causes of that horrific day for the sake of this vague notion of protecting "certain diplomatic and foreign relations."
As a result of the attack on 9/11, many thousands lost their loved ones and had their lives changed forever. Yet, this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act go free untouched and uninvestigated by simply citing "protection of certain foreign and diplomatic relations for national security."
Today, we are told that we are still under the threat of terrorists, and remain under various colors of the color-coded threat system invented and promoted by this administration. Yet, this same administration is relentlessly preventing any real investigations into finding out the facts, the real facts, regarding acts, semi-legit organizations, and people, involved in plots against this country and its people under their sorry excuse of "protecting certain foreign and diplomatic relations."
Isn't it time to ask what diplomatic or foreign relations they keep referring to?
Isn't it fair to demand that they should let the people know what kind of foreign relations are worth 3,000 lives lost?
Isn't it this administration's obligation to justify these costs in lives and in our national security for the sake of maintaining certain foreign relations that benefit only the few?
Just take notice of the means this administration has used in my case alone to accomplish covering up and protecting those "foreign relations," and to dodge any accountability themselves: illegal reclassifications, secrecy, gagging congressional inquiries, blocking court proceedings, stopping investigations, invoking the rarely invoked State Secret Privilege, asserting national security.
It is apparent that this administration confidently expects the American people to sign blank checks unquestioningly. It is obvious that they believe they are entitled to unchecked power, unlimited authority, and unquestioning citizens' support. To them, our Bill of Rights under the Constitution is nothing more than an inconvenient roadblock to overcome; our American system of checks and balances can be bypassed by overusing national security; and people's dissent is a problem that can be diverted away by a culture of fear and complete submission to government authority.
As I have stated many times previously, I will continue this fight, since in taking my citizenship oath I pledged that I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have the right and the obligation to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against John Ashcroft's assaults.
Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly
after the Sept. 11 attacks, translating top-secret documents
pertaining to suspected terrorists. She was fired in the spring
of 2002 after reporting her concerns about sabotage, intimidation,
corruption and incompetence to superiors. She first gained wide
public attention in October of that year when she appeared on
60 Minutes on CBS and charged that the FBI, State Department,
and Pentagon had been infiltrated by Turkish individuals suspected
of ties to terrorism. On October 18, 2002, at the request of
FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft imposed
a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic
relations or national security. Edmonds is a key witness in a
pending class-action suit filed by 9/11 families against the
government.
Real Audio interview with Sibel Edmonds
To: United States Congress
To: All members of the Congress of the United States of America; all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Video interview with Sibel Edmonds
Sign Sibel's petition
A Petition to require the immediate release of the entire report
completed in July 2004 by the Department of Justice?s Office of the
Inspector General (DOJ-IG) of its investigation into confirmed reports
by FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, but which has remained classified;
and further Petition that it be followed by a joint investigation by
Congress, including open public hearings, into those reports of
wrongdoing, criminal activities, and cover-ups against the security and
interests of the United States and its citizenry.
The DOJ-IG began its investigation in March 2002, and at the
request of Senators Grassley(R) and Leahy (D) promised expedited
release in the Fall of 2002. In June 2002 the FBI, in unclassified
Senate briefings, confirmed the validity of Ms. Edmonds reports
(Attorney General Ashcroft in May 2004 retroactively classified
information from these briefings and gagged the Congress, preventing
further Congressional investigation and disclosure). Despite its
promise of expedited release, the DOJ-IG repeatedly delayed completion
of its report, and when after over two years completed it in July 2004,
declared it entirely classified and has not released a single page to
the public. Issues covered by the DOJ-IG investigation include; the
cover-up of information and leads pre and post 9/11, under the excuse
of protecting certain diplomatic relations; espionage activities within
(but not limited to) the FBI & Department of Defense; cases of
intentional blocking and mistranslation of crucial intelligence by FBI
translators and management.
The FBI and the Department of Justice have engaged in a relentless
effort to withhold this information in order to prevent public
awareness and thus avoid accountability, and in so doing are placing
the security of the nation at risk. In this regard ranking Senate
Judiciary Committee members Grassley(R) and Leahy (D) have stated: ?We
fear that the designation of information as classified in these cases
serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations
and full accountability. Releasing declassified versions of these
reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public?s
interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency
at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight.? Given the
seriousness of Ms. Edmonds? reports and in the best interests of the
security of the country, it is imperative that information contained in
the DOJ-IG report be made available to the public. It is incumbent upon
the Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities and authority
as the representatives of the people of the United States, therefore:
We, the undersigned, now call upon the Congress to require the
immediate release of the entire DOJ-IG report of its investigation, and
to open a joint investigation into all related issues, with open
hearings before the people of the United States.