If citizens were not aware that there are unethical individuals in law enforcement and scattered throughout the government who can access these files, and if we did not know that files get ‘lost’, and if we were not aware that computer files get hacked into, why would we worry? But these things have all become reality and pervasive.
First Amendment rights are one of the last protections we Americans have against this government becoming a Fascist state. And since George W Bush was first elected, his gang of neo conservatives have been relentlessly hacking away at these protections at an alarming rate.
These recent policy changes that were quietly put into effect without proper guidelines or oversight are strong reminders that freedom from government intrusion into our private lives can no longer be taken for granted.
Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the updating of policies reflects an effort to be more transparent. If they are attempting to be more ‘transparent’ then why did it take a lawsuit brought against them by Asian Law Caucus and Electronic Frontier Foundation under the Freedom of Information Act to get DHS to disclose these changes? Why were these changes put into effect 'quietly' without public input or review? More double-speak from Big Brother.
In an e-mail she wrote
"to change some of the standards in its old policies reflects the realities of the post-9/11 environment, the agency's expanded mission and legal authorities, and developments in the law, including the Homeland Security Act of 2003. Although certain aspects of the policies have changed, the policies have always reflected the notion that officers have the constitutional authority to inspect information presented at the border"
Referring to the previous policy as ‘old’ connotes an outdated and therefore ineffective policy that must be updated. This old policy reflected a higher standard by Federal agents to be governed by probable cause before viewing a traveler as a suspect without probable cause. This higher standard was reflective of the population at large who used to believe that an individual was innocent until proven guilty. This notion has now been tossed aside and relegated to nostalgia along with elders are wiser and deserve to be listened to and respected.
Declaring that information is ‘presented’ at a border crossing intimates that the information is given freely by the traveler. This cannot be further from the truth. Any personal item brought to the border remains personal, and as such requires permission by the owner to be viewed by anyone else, including government agents, and is not ‘presented’ at all. Identification of the individual is ’presented’ at the officers request (demand), and everything else should remain off limits unless freely ‘presented’ by the owner.
She speaks of constitutional authority without mentioning the constitutional rights concerning privacy. This is government speak for we have the right to do and take whatever we want from anyone at anytime.
The 1986 policy, which is referred to as old, was issued after a lawsuit was filed by a group of activists returning from Nicaragua who had their diaries, datebooks and other personal papers seized and photocopied by customs officers and shared with the FBI. The government argued that the customs agency had the right to enforce a law against importing subversive literature. Their subversive literature was an attempt to inform the American public of the illegal war in Nicaragua perpetrated by our government to overthrow a freely and fairly elected Nicaraguan government.
David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who was then a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, representing the activists suing the government in Heidy v. U.S. Customs Service, said
"Essentially they were using that as a pretext to do intelligence gathering on critics of our policies on Nicaragua".
As a result of that trial, U.S. Customs officials enacted guidelines to its border agents that its officers "should not read personal correspondence." With reasonable suspicion of a violation, they could detain the material. With probable cause of a violation, they could seize and copy it. These recent changes have lowered the legal standards under which agents can exercise their powers. Probable cause is no longer a hindrance to their ‘gut’ instinct.
I appreciate the task with which Homeland Security is steeling themselves for, that being to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, but their zeal in this endeavor is treating U.S. citizens like criminals. Is there any clear evidence that they have prevented another terrorist attack? Their mindset is such that if they have not yet found evidence of an attack then they are not looking closely enough, therefore they need to step up their efforts. In the meantime, the FBI is getting closer to realizing its dream of having a dossier on every U.S. citizen.
The tenor of the way in which our elected officials view the American people has changed. No longer do government officials feel they represent us or work for us, they now view the general population as obstacles that must be overcome in order to attain their goal of a one world government. George W was elected by a right-leaning supreme court, not by popular vote. Will it happen again this election cycle? A precedence has already been set.
In light of these policy changes and the way in which Bush’s cronies have hacked away at our civil rights, the systematic shifting of powers from Congress to the Executive branch, the suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of certain prisoners as “enemies of the state”, the use of torture, the illegal warrantless spying on American citizens, the unwarranted ability to seize personal items at the borders, the selling off of America to private interests, and the recent government buyout of Wall Street, is it really any great stretch to see Fascism just on the horizon?
1 comment:
I agree totally
Post a Comment