Terrorist Takes Refuge in America

Another interesting instance of DoubleSpeak/DoubleThink here: The Bush Administration has made no move to detain a known terrorist, and former CIA operative, Luis Posada Carriles. He has been connected to the bombing of a Cuban jetliner, killing more than 70 people in 1976. However, because he operated from Venezuela and attacked Cuba -- both "enemies" in the contemporary frame -- perhaps the Administration is being decidedly political here. To me, this reads as: "He's one of OUR terrorists. He can stay."

Read an article here: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5891605?nclick_check=1

Or just this excerpt: "So for now, Posada's a free man - even though the administration has sufficient evidence to arrest him for his role in either the 1976 airliner bombing or the 1997 Havana bombings. For that matter, Posada easily could be detained under Section 412 of the Patriot Act, which calls for the mandatory detention of aliens suspected of terrorism."

--- Since when does the Administration decide against enacting the PATRIOT ACT?

"The administration's approach to Posada contrasts jarringly with its approach to suspected Al-Qaida terrorists. With the latter, the administration wastes no time on legal niceties. Foreign nationals have been illegally "rendered" to countries where they faced torture, interrogated in secret CIA prisons and sent to languish at Guantanamo, sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence. Even U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activities have been dubbed "unlawful enemy combatants" and deprived of their constitutional rights. So why is the administration dragging its feet on arresting and charging Posada?

--- I guess the hate of Cuba and Castro outweighs the Global War on Terror.

"It's not as if the evidence against Posada is seriously in dispute. In 1998, for instance, he "proudly admitted authorship of the hotel bomb attacks" to the New York Times, describing them "as acts of war intended to cripple a totalitarian regime[."]"

--- Which totalitarian regime is worse? That of Castro, or that of Bush... If "acts of war intended to cripple totalitarian regime" are warranted in some cases and not others, who gets to decide? Right, the guys with the most guns.

Broken

The world is broken. It has not been broken by accident, really, it has been broken on purpose. It has been broken by those who would rather see it come undone than operate within its natural, logical, and ethical bounds. It is being reformed, constantly reestablishing new designs that favour the designers, to the detriment of those that believe the old world, recently pushed into obsolescence, still exists. Without reporting that the world order has changed, and without permitting participation in the establishment of this order, the few and the elite will enjoy further exploitation of the underclass. Of course, they don't see a problem with that.

This broken world is the one that bears most of the desires of the participants. However, whether these designs are of induced desire or of actual desire, the distinction is virtually ignored. What the participants in a World want is often very different that what their desires and appetites tell them that they want.

This broken world is the one that requires the least effort to live in. It is manifest of the minimum amount of responsibility and a minimum amount of knowledge. In so doing it absolves humanity of any wrongdoing. It cannot be helped, the things that we do, it is in our nature.

In identifying the tree of knowledge with original sin, it exalts the value of ignorance; which, though blissful, yet remains ignorant. Sloughing off responsibility on God, hoping to debt that humans have any culpability for actions in the universe is the worst of the offenses of religion.

Desires fulfilled and responsibility lacking, the world promotes a child-like perspective. Every action is self-justifying and requires no sacrifice. Further, as more children are born into a world that reinforces a peter pan syndrome, the beliefs and expectations held for each other and the world are pushed more toward an unattainable ideal.

The conclusion of this process of aggressive regression is humanity as less than a child-species, it is humanity as a fetal species. Adults will return to the womb, having every concern removed and every requirement for knowledge undone. The living state of the adult human will be that of a comatose person, as asleep to the passage of events, of time, and of life as a sleeping child. "Living" will be an exercise only of the mind; at that, it will be of little exercise.

PATRIOT Act

I don't believe that we can put the issue of "terrorist" to bed quite yet. Speaking about the PATRIOT ACT requires discussion of the enemy to whom it pertains, "the terrorists." We may have to come to an understanding about the use of the word. Elsewhere, elsewhen. For now, I have to lay out some words on the PATRIOT ACT, and I try to choose my words clearly.

First, as was stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 (which, I might add, I was less than happy with) legislators rarely read all of the content in the bills they pass. In the case of the PATRIOT ACT, from inception to signing into law, the bill was virtually unread and passed in three days. Herein lies the DoubleSpeak: It was not responsible legislation, it was a decree from King Bush and his court. As a result of this act, the President and many government agencies -- FBI, CIA, were granted extraordinary powers and given massive funding to undermine the essence of America and threaten peaceful relations with the rest of the world. This is the first failure in critical thinking.

Second, the purpose of the Act is to "deter and punish American terrorists in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes." Consequently, it is an American law that can be -- and is -- applied to non-Americans OUTSIDE of America. Each country makes its own laws and enforces those laws within its borders. For the events and circumstances that transcend international borders there are international laws and treaties. There are international organizations that enforce these laws and treaties; the UN and NATO are the two most prominent. Think critically now, if a law was passed in North Korea that could be enforced on Americans, would America accept it? Keep in mind, America does not live up to its obligations under many of the treaties, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it has signed at the UN. America also refuses to extradite any American to the World Court. Essentially it means, to me, that America does a lot of shit in the world it can't and won't justify to anyone. That may, in fact, be the American way and the American culture in a nutshell.

There are several further problems in the text and application of the PATRIOT ACT

Despite the protections against discrimination stated in Title I of the PATRIOT ACT, when put into practices the statement is meaningless. "Terrorists" are being made out of Islamic people the world over. As a result, law enforcement agencies must discriminate, targeting Arabs and Muslims, to achieve their objectives. DoubleSpeak.

Warrantless wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, information filtering, and so on; every available resource is being used to combat "the terrorists." The implication is that you too, an innocent, may be investigated without the standard of prima facie evidence or probable cause. Done as a threat assessment, all of these acts are simple and possible.

Non-citizens, traveling in or through the US, can be detained without charge and held indefinitely once charged. That means, as a hub of global travel, America grants itself the right to detain whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose. And, as in the case of Maher Arar, to deport international travelers to any destination they see fit.

There's a great website that breaks down the problems with the ACT here: http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/

It is a paranoid means of behavioural control, paternalism at its worst, very reminiscent of 1984. And, now, perfectly legal. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear, right? Maybe. You never know when one of your sentiments may be deemed a threat to national security. One further note, a recent audit of warrantless FBI wiretaps, searches, and surveillance requests under the PATRIOT ACT have determined that the FBI is currently abusing their new investigative powers.

World Power II

America will destroy itself and the American people, the ones without any power will be caught in the middle. There will be a meltdown of the economic -- and therefore political -- relationships that America has with the rest of the world, and then there will be the collapse from within of the social, political, and economic relationships within the nation. The country may fragment, a group of very powerful rogue states struggling for resources. America's image, mainly supported by an immense media storm, is already beginning to crumble. There is too much inertia in the country for a radical change, too many people set in their ways, don't you think?

The type of change required would go hand-in-hand with revolution. If that is true, the American people will be required to overcome all of the "national security" safeguards that protect the country from revolution or coups d'etat or other subversive actions. The police actions of the 1960s against the Black Panthers exemplify this. Current homeland security measures, even more so. Any threat to the government or the "American way" (which depends on who is defining it) is deemed a terrorist act and will receive the response of every level of law enforcement.

So, to effect revolutionary change, someone with power would have to act against his/her own interest and support the interests of the American people and lead a revolution, or the American people will have to overcome the world power they have helped to create.

"... would it have to be someone that already had power? Couldn't a revolutionary rise to power whilst benefiting themselves because, to put it simply, they want exactly what the people want?

"...my opinion still remains the same, that America will not "sink far enough" to need a revolution. The soon-to-be-elected Democrats will change some of the current problems, and America will soon start it's imminent decline from "World Power" status." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 28 May 2007).

There is so little space for those not empowered to act. Grass-roots organizations exist all over the place but no one of them has the organizing power to attract any or all of the others. A lightning rod is needed and, often in Western culture, that lightning rod is a celebrity. Any celebrity that would want to align people for a revolution against the powers-that-be would be, in a de facto fashion, acting against big media -- against their celebrity status. If, on the other hand, the empowered individual was an academic, or a captain of industry, or ex-military, or ex-government, all of these people, are acting against their own interest. I maintain that the person would have to be empowered, If, as you ask, the revolution is in line with the interest of the individual and, thus, is empowering, I question the ability for that revolution to overcome the safeguards in place. The empire can only collapse from within. Weakened by its own largesse, a revolutionary move is the bare minimum requirement.

Keep in mind that the Democrats still have to keep the war-profiteers, uh... er... industries such as weapons manufacture, oil and gas, automakers, and aerospace companies, happy. As long as corporations can contribute to political campaigns, "thy will be done." It would be revolutionary if the Democrats would, after attaining office, remove that capacity, but, again, they would be the empowered taking revolutionary action. I don't see it AS happening. Would a political party shoot itself in the foot like that?

As far as other potential changes that the democrats could institute, any change large enough to shift or change America would be revolutionary. I consider America a Juggernaut in the truest sense of the word. Immense. Powerful. Armed to the teeth. Heavy. Moving at a pace that makes it an unstoppable force. The only immovable objects America faces are the Second American Revolution or the immovable object that is Peak Oil, or Economic Collapse, World War III (which is already, mostly, happening).

America and Britain are in a fix. They, two of the G7/8 invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq (under false pretenses). All of the West owes a lot to China for its cheap consumer products, the lifeblood of a Western economy, and both China and Russia get oil from Iran, neighbours and associates of Iraq on the "Axis of Evil." Both America and the UK, sometimes (like Y) Canada, are heavily dependent on the success of the War on Terror being fought to secure their meal tickets. Ignoring the warnings put out by Kyoto Protocols and the Doomsday Clock and the recent Stern Report, the consumption of fossil fuels proceeds apace, which, in turn, continues the widening of the gap between rich and poor. All of this under the pretense of securing freedom for everyone, while greedom reigns supreme. Freedom is for those who accept what freedom is permitted to them.

Now, the war is against "the Terrorists." This is merely a preamble. Eventually, the war will be against the dissenters, or the shit disturbers, or the anti-globalisation nuts... anyone who says "NO." It is in this respect that I say that WWIII, not a clash of ideals (as in WWII) and not a clash of world powers (as in WWI), but a clash of circumstance, of powers and ideals.

What is the break point? WWIII will only be recognized when the disenfranchised of every nation take up arms and fight their oppressors -- both within and without. It is the war of the Rich against the Poor. It is the most devastating series of wars imaginable, civil and international wars with simultaneous ends.

Revolution is preferable.

There are currently talks of a neo-Cold War. Russia is pissed with the West. China is looking to take top spot from the US: economically, militarily, socially. They do have the Olympics this year... And, what of the spread of anti-American sentiment -- not that it is undeserved -- across the globe. Military power is being proven ineffectual daily in Iraq. It was proven ineffectual in Lebanon last summer. Despite the power of guns, ideas reign supreme. So, choose. War -- WWIII -- or Revolution.

"Alright, all of this probably will happen, but will it really happen soon? I can see the world plodding on for about another twenty five years..." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 31 May 2007).

No. Sooner. Don't forget the history you, yourself, have witnessed. American foreign policy did not change between the "election" of Bush in November 2000 and 11 September 01. He was then re-elected November '04, and there were bombings in London 7 July 05. The way I see it, after the election in '08, without a troop withdrawal from Iraq and some compromise on the nuclear issue and more amiable economic relations the world over AND some movement on environmental and human rights issues, 2009 will be a tough year.

Beyond this...

Russia is PISSED about Iran. Read the news. Putin, indirectly, but openly, compared US foreign policy and military power to that of Fascist Germany. The Soviets didn't declare war on Germany until late in 1944, but they resisted the advance of the Nazis for years at Stalingrad. So, Putin's statement, in concert with Russian history, shows that Russia will resist the type of power they perceive coming out of Washington.

One further note on the attacks of 9|11 and 7|7. It is reasonable to believe that some empowered person within, to further certain political or economic ends, permitted or assisted in the execution of these attacks. Often, I have called this "playing both sides against the middle."

Many among the power elite benefited from the 9|11 attacks: gold commodity values went through the roof, shorted shares for each airline involved paid off, the insurance policies on WTC1 and 2 and 7 all paid out to one person. The timing of the attacks, in relation to two American elections and the G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland in 2005, further supports the theory that someone is pushing an agenda. Something happens in some rotten corner of the world, requiring a distraction inside the G8 that permits a correction to go unnoticed, or, it acts as a pretext for "strong, decisive action."

Remember the British sailors captured off of the Iraqi/Iranan coast? They were returned at Easter as a show of good faith. Had they not been returned, it was a potential pretext for war. The same pretext used by Israel in attacking Lebanon in 2006. The notion that Downing Street and Pennsylvania Ave. had conspired together in this gambit was discussed. Apparently the President of an "evil" nation managed to steal the moral high ground.

Whether such an agenda is engagement in Iraq for war profiteering or for oil revenues or simply to tip the scales in favor of one unnamed power centre over another (I'm thinking the Stonecutters or the Freemasons, or the Illuminati here), it doesn't matter. In the final analysis, change still requires a strength that simply does not exist in the world. At least not yet. When peace is profitable, when an even distribution of wealth is profitable, there might be change.

Remember, and I keep saying it, America is NOT the WORLD. It is the things that America does elsewhere that brings the shitstorm home. It is not the shit that happens in America that makes things go bad for the world.