Many debate today whether or not we are moving towards a Police State, whether this measure or that bill is meant to set up a future police state or just to fight terrorism, etc.

I contend and put forward this thesis, we are in a PRIMED or ON CALL Police state already, and if you will allow me your time to explain I think you will agree with me.

Breaking into Godwin’s Law right off the bat (Godwin’s law states that the longer a Internet discussion grows the probability of referencing Nazi’s is increased), I must reference 1930′s Germany.

I do this not because it is THE most applicable example, however it is the most ready made and easily accessible one.  I don’t reference it because our government is specifically like the Nazi party circa 1930′s.  We also have to move past the Anti-Semitism and Aryan Superiority ideology and look at meat and potatoes of a Police State.

WHAT IS A POLICE STATE?

A common understanding of a Police state is one in which the government, i.e. the state, used repressive and strict measures of control over the social, economic and political life of the nations citizens, in which elements of totalitarianism and social control are present and there is no true distinction between LAW and Government Power; i.e. what the government says IS law.

Other hallmarks are

• Restrictions on mobility
• Restrictions on freedom of expression
• Monitoring of communications and speech
• Political Control exercises by Law Enforcement outside the rights normally associated with a constitutional Nation

HOW DOES THE U.S. LOOK LIKE THIS?

There are three categories of people when talking about a Police State in the U.S.

1. Those that see the signs and are worried
2. Those that stick their heads in the sand and say it can never happen here
3. Those that think that paying a meter violation equals a police state

I want to speak to those in category two, those in 1 don’t need this information they probably already know it and those in 3…well those are that 1% that make those of us in the first category look bad.

I will go over a few of the hallmarks and show you examples, however I want to explain my thesis of what it means to be a PRIMED police state.

The word Primed means ready, can be initiated at a moments notice, much like a Primer in a ‘bullet’, it is completely inert until the right mechanism puts it into action, that being the will of a man.

We are a Primed Police State because although there is a lot to be worried about as well as many, many, many examples of active encroachments into our personal liberties, we are not in a full blow Police State at this time…yet.

What I mean is that, like a Bullet, all the elements are there, it has been constructed and all it is waiting for is the will of a man to set it off.

Restrictions on Mobility

The Constitution under the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” guarantees the Freedom of Movement and the Supreme Court has upheld that as far back as 1823 and in 1869 in Paul v. Virginia the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”.  However the Supreme Court vested the States with the duty to protect this right and not the Federal Government.

The government has been increasing the amount of Federal checkpoints throughout the U.S. in recent years, ostensibly to “catch terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal aliens” however if they wanted to stop illegal aliens much could be done by beefing up our borders to the South AND NORTH, as well as have a more coherent policy on customs and immigration, etc.

These checkpoints are not about catching terrorists they are about control, pure and simple.  Checkpoints are set up at state lines and check for such ridiculous things as “plants” to make sure you aren’t bringing in ‘invasive species’

Recently the Homeland Security has started to deploy VIPR (Visible Intermodel Prevention and Response) Teams onto Tennessee highways, among the ranks of these teams are the venerable TSA officers of much fame in our airports, you know our last line of defense, in the shape of obese assholes who feel up little children.

These VIPR teams conduct screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and every other mass transit location in the country and the LA times announced the VIPR teams conduction 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in 2012 alone.

With the precedent that the Federal government can stop and search your person and your vehicle, and IF you are allowed to say no, then the best thing they can offer is to turn around.  This is not Freedom of Travel, but Freedom to Travel as long as you consent to our search.

A mileage tax is looming as well, as cars become more fuel efficient (and also more on the road due to government incentives as well as higher taxes on gas) the government is stuck with the problem of lower tax revenue as less gas is bought.  So there have been ideas floated about having a ‘mileage tax’ this could be using GPS trackers, or having something installed on your car that you have to have checked yearly, quarterly etc and you pay pennies every mile you drive.

Restrictions on Freedom of Expression

I wont go into every single thing that can get you into trouble, but I will illustrate just one, the most egregious that I know of, and one with SERIOUS implications that was nearly glossed over in the media, and only seen on FOX (However this was more primarily because Obama was President and not the former).

President Obama signed into the law the FEDERAL RESTRICTED BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2011.  This law permits the Secret Service to designate any place or location they wish as place where free speech and free association are prohibited, it also allows the Secret Service to make these decisions based on the content of the Speech.  Basically what this means is that the Secret Service, if it doesn’t like what you are saying can prohibit you from saying it, if its against the President, Candidate or WHOEVER its a no no, supporters are ok.

The most dangerous aspect is that that the law allows the government to prosecute anyone who gathers or exercises their free speech in a “Restricted” area to be prosecuted with a Felony.  The law also does not require the government to prove intent, so if you come into the area accidental you can be prosecuted all the same.

This is also dangerous because it does not limit it to just the president just to wherever the Secret Service happens to be, what if this becomes State Capitals, every member of Congress, etc?

The Law is there, it has no stipulations on the person (although it shouldn’t be there in the first place) only that a government agency can designate any area they choose as restricted and prosecute you for violating it whether you knew it or not!

However this law is just amended one of previous laws that has been built upon since Richard Nixon (good guy to follow).

MONITORING SPEECH AND THOUGHT

As I talked about Before in my Minicast Episode 11 regarding the NSA monitoring Domestic communications, the NSA spy agency has alluded to the fact that they believe they have the right to listen to anything they want.  When they were asked about this by a couple Congressman they said that

• If Illegal monitoring had occurred, they couldn’t tell the Congress because doing so would violate the privacy of the persons whos privacy they already violated
• Oh and we don’t have the people to check the records on how many people have been illegally monitored and had their information stored (they ahve enough to do it and store it, just not enough to put together a list!)

This amounts to either 1) Gross violations of the Constitution and willfully committing illegal acts or 2) laziness and dereliction of duty.  If they are supposed to be our ‘Ears’ and a primary source for INTELLIGENCE how can they say they can put together a fricken list!

The Supreme Court also backed the NSA in a case where human rights and civil rights groups sued to have the NSA release files to see if they among others had been targeted for intelligence gathering and illegal monitoring.  The Supreme Court said because the NSA wouldn’t allow for a investigation to go ahead and check on this the parties involved couldn’t prove they had been targeted so they had no case.  A Classic case of circular logic and the tail wagging the dog.

Corporations as well work hand in hand with the government to keep a close eye on who might be committing criminal acts (although they never say what they are monitoring for specifically and what constitutes ‘criminal’)

Facebook has admitted to scanning users posts and chats for ‘criminal activity’, now of course they pull out the cases involving sickos who are trying to solicit sex from underage kids, i applaud them for that, however Facebook and law enforcement are quite on exactly what constitutes criminal activity and what is handed over.

Google has recently, and laudibly (hey at least they gave hard numbers!) announced that they hand over User Data for 94% of Law Enforcement requests that come to them.

Google also tracks what you look at, what you search for, what you watch on YouTube and all their connected data.  Now this is mostly so they can target ads to you that make more sense.  So say if you watch videos on Fishing, Seafood and buy Crab pots online, that when you search for “Crab” in google their ads are more fishing related and not how to get rid of STD’s.

However this can be very dangerous and individuals need to be aware and take precautions in what they say and search for on the internet, i wrote a post on how to do just this.

Remember that Corporations don’t bite the hand that feeds them, they work hand in hand with government and scratch their back so they can get theirs scratched.

Outside the Boundaries of a Constitutional state

There are many aspects of this issue but I will just focus on a few.

Warrant less Searches

During the Colonial times British officers were allowed to write their own search warrants called “Writs of Assistance”, which became such an egregious problem that the American Constitution under the 4th Amendment banned General Search warrants and has provided a system in which evidence needed to be obtained and presented to a judge before a warrant to search a persons private property could be allowed.

The Patriot Act, upon a foundation of previous offenses now allowed Federal Agents to do the same using “National Security Letters” which require NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.  This allowed the government to compel (i.e. force you to hand over or search for) yourself and institutions to hand over financial records, credit reports, telephone, internet and other communications records.  The FBI only has to specify that they request pertains to a foreign intelligence investigation (even if you are an American Citizen) once they do so a Judge is REQUIRED to issue the order, this it is a de facto writ of assistance.

Indefinite Detention

The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) is the worst offender since the Patriot Act (a high bar). Why?

The Indefinite Detention Clause is one not unique to NDAA as it was considered ‘implicit’ in the Patriot Act, signed by a Republican President.

This clause allows for the “indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President.”  It is dangerous as it has no limitations geographically and future presidents could detain you not just in some far off battlefield but here at home.  Recent comments by Senator Kelly Ayotte (R, N.H) decried that “America is part of the battlefield”  A chilling statement given what they passed.

Assassinations

Recent events have called into question the Executive branches authority in carrying out military operations.  The Drone Strike against an American Citizen in Yemen (Granted he was probably a bad dude) as well as his 16 year old son later have left gaping questions in how far the Executives power reaches into killing Citizens based on solely an order by the president.

The Administration has admitted to having a “kill list” of people who are to be put on the chopping block when the opportunity arises.  The issues with this are 3 fold

1) Its secret

2) Questions over its legality

3) What are the criterion for Americans on that list?

No al-Alwaki was at the very least a traitor to the country, and probably deserved to be killed, however the list is secret, the evidence is secret and regardless he was still an American citizen.

His son however was not on “the kill list”, he had not been operational within Al-Qaida.  He was a 16 year old boy who had lived with his cousins while looking for his father who had gone into hiding after being targeted by the U.S. Government (once again the guy was a bad dude).  After his father was killed he went back to his cousins to say goodbye, and on that night while sitting around the fire eating, him along with the rest were killed in a Drone Strike.

When asked specifically about killing a minor who was an American citizen without due process or a trial the White House Press Secretary had this to say…

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children.”

The kid was killed two weeks after his father, this was not a case of the minor being in the same place as his father on the day the strike hit al-Alwaki, the defense is that two weeks after his AL-Qaeda father was killed he was because his father had joined Al-Qaeda.

This “Kill List” is very concerning due to the fact that this has no Congressional or Judicial Oversight, that the decision to kill someone, even an American can be made solely by the Executive Branch.  A few people in the White House can get together and regardless if you are an American Citizen or not, be targeted for Assassination, with no need to present evidence, only the fiat, the yes, of the Executive Branch is needed.

The Internal Memo in the White House regarding assassination of American Citizens says that “the administration claims it has legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States”  However the Memo just like the Wiretapping issues have no specific geographic limitations, which without them the Executive by inference believes it can assassinate American citizens IN AMERICA without Evidence saying they are even a threat, only if they Executive decides they are.

This Internal Memo can be seen here

Conclusions

We have a Primed Police State, one not in full swing.  Even if you gave the government the full benefit of the doubt, or which they are not entitled to and have lost all right to be given, and you believe none of them want this, it doesn’t matter, the groundwork is there, all that is needed is not a host of Congressional Bills and Executive Orders, all that is truly needed is for there to be a “Go Ahead”.

All the pieces are in place, there isn’t much more required to complete it.

We have the government impeding your ability to travel without searches and document checks, they can write their own warrants based on no evidence to prove they need it, they can kill Americans in and out of the country based on the opinions of a few, they can read your emails, listen in on your phone and are not accountable, they can indefinitely detain you based on no evidence only needing to declare you a Terrorist.

It is ready, but it is not fully here…yet.

All that is needed is the next “crisis” that they wont let go to waste.

   Send article as PDF   

(Photo Credit: http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-drink-the-kool-aid/)

While browsing through my Google Alerts I came across a RT (Russia Today) which is actually a damn good resource for news you wont find in America, sure they are overly critical of the U.S. and a State Funded News Agency, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have great stories.  I look at them often and regard them as a much more genuine source of news in the U.S. than CNN, Fox or most others.

An Amendment to NDAA will be tacked onto the acts funding for Fiscal year 2013, called the “Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012″ (Story was written in May 2012)

This act was originally enacted in 1948 and the Modernization act updates this old bill as well as the “Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987″ which was ostensibly to “Prepare, Disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad”, i.e. propaganda.  Now in the beginning of and the heyday of the Cold War and worldwide countering of Communism, this seemed like a great idea, to put out pro Western/American/Capitalist messages abroad to counter Soviet Propaganda at the time.

However this new Amendment will strike down the long standing ban that the act had on domestic dissemination in the US, that is the ban allowed the U.S. to put out whatever propaganda they wanted overseas to whoever, but that no money allocated could be used to help sway public opinion in the U.S. and put out advertising campaigns to support this war or that war, etc.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) are the ones who introduced this bill have defended it saying

“This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

Rep Smith said.

“…To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

The Story goes on to ask whether that means that the U.S. will start targeting domestic internet sites (as “online” was one of the main mediums mentioned) to help “explain” their position for bombing Libya or giving arms to terrorists in Syria?  The bill has no language to say that it wont, and if you let history be the judge of the Congress you can be sure of many things, one being…If it don’t say DON’T they take it as YES PLEASE DO!

In a follow up to the controversy the bill stirred up the Congressman responded by saying

“It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences’ and, in fact, specifically ensures that the content to be rebroadcast or republished domestically by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) shall not influence public opinion in the US. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion.”

However the text of the bill does not reflect this statement and a very big grey area can be seen in how the government can finagle around the words “public opinion” by just saying “Well we aren’t influencing public opinion through propaganda only putting out the factual information we have for the public to judge…” or something to that effect.

The Bill (H.R.5736) can be seen though this link

If you look in Section 208 you will see in part A the words

“No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.)”

However this shows the Congressman are stretching the truth at best, since that language of “shall not” is followed by “This section shall only apply to programs carried out pursuant to…”

In part B you can see these words…

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material”

followed by in section C

“The provisions of this section shall apply only to the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors and to no other department or agency of the Federal Government.’.”

This Bill “died” in committee but was passed in HR 4310 i.e. the NDAA Fiscal Year 2013 bill (H.R. 4310, you can find the text on page 326)

   Send article as PDF   

In 1984 the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was passed, supposedly to stop hacking of systems owned by the government and banks.  Fast forward to today and the bill has had 7 amendments and is considered by most lawyers and legal experts as far beyond the scope of what any law should be and is described as “expansive..sweeping”.

One of the central parts of the law is the ‘ban’ on ‘unauthorized access’ to a computer or computer network/system, although there is no real definition of what entails ‘unauthorized access’.  This law was the one used to prosecute activist Aaron Swartz and eventually led to his committing suicide before trial (The law is so expansive that Aaron was facing more time in prison than someone who helps Al-Qaeda get a nuclear bomb all for downloading academic papers from MIT to publish for all to read).

CFAA 2013

There is a new draft of the bill coming up in mid April and is expected to be RUSHED through Congress before any outrage can boil up in the public.  While there have been calls to limit the scope of this bill in the wake of Aaron Swartz’s death, once the true realities of the scope of this legislation was finally unveiled after all these years, the new CFAA does nothing in this regard.  Not only does it NOT reign in the DOJ, it actually EXPANDS the powers of the CFAA.  Crazy how that works right?

The new Bill will

• Expand the ways a person can be prosecuted by allowing prosecution of those who “conspire to commit” the same as if they actually did commit the crime.
• Makes Computer Crimes a form of Racketeering activity, which means you could fall afoul of RICO.  Making even a couple small crimes, could land you in federal prison for a long time because of a law that was “meant” to take down MAFIA BOSSES!  However Rico is actually rarely ever used against organized crime, but thats a different story….The fact that this is brought it is why RICO was troubling in the first place.  This allows the government to not only charge you with the offenses you committed but further ones under RICO letting you spend even longer terms in prison for what often are relatively minor offenses.
• Stiffer maximum sentences (which i already mentioned, Aaron Swartz was facing a longer sentence than if someone had given Al-Qaeda a active nuclear bomb….insanity…)
• The most troubling aspect of the expanded CFAA law is that the bill expands the law to include “accessing information for an impermissible purpose.”  Which means that its not a matter of whether you did something that was illegal or not, but whether someone deems that what you were using for wasnt permitted, a gateway to a HUGE grey area of interpretation.  Does this mean if i download a free pdf on making a barn, but then use it to house chickens that aren’t allowed in my county i can be charged with CFAA?  With the way it is written, yes.

This law is written in a way that would make it a FELONY  A FELONY to lie about your age in a online dating profile “if you intend to contact someone online and ask them personal questions” or if you violate the terms of service on a government website.  If you say you are 27 and you are 29 and you talk to someone…or INTEND (the key word as ‘intend’ is up to interpretation…yay…) to talk to someone…BOOM felony for you….If you go onto a government website and say you…actually ill do some research into ONE governments Terms of Service….

US POSTAL SERVICE

The U.S. Postal Service has this in their Terms of Service which you “agree” to by just going to their site and being on it…

Users may view and download material from this site only for the following purposes: (a) for personal, non-commercial home use; (b) where the materials clearly state that these materials may be copied and reproduced according to the terms stated in those particular pages; or (c) with the express written permission of the Postal Service. In all other cases, you will need written permission from the Postal Service to reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, distribute or publicly display material from this Web site. Users agree not to use the site for sale, trade or other commercial purposes. Users may not use language that is threatening, abusive, vulgar, discourteous or criminal. Users also may not post or transmit information or materials that would violate rights of any third party or which contains a virus or other harmful component. The Postal Service reserves the right to remove or edit any messages or material submitted by users.

So if you go onto the U.S. Postal Service Website and say…go to Customer Service and go through the FAQ questions and still are not satisfied, you get the part where you can send a typed question/comment to the USPS.  Say a carrier had been a jerk and threw your mail on the ground below your mailbox and you were heated and you type a angry comment to the USPS about this incident and say call the Postal service in general “A bunch of assholes”… YOU HAVE NOW VIOLATED THE TERMS OF SERVICE ON A GOVERNMENT WEBSITE.

Which now makes you a criminal in the eyes of the “Law” and subject to federal criminal charges….Brave new world right?

   Send article as PDF