Horrible things happen all the time. Nobody denies the evil of 9/11. Some among us will analyze policies that led to the creation of the suicidal hijacking of the fateful morning and call for government reform. Others will demand that US hegemony be respected through the barrel of a gun. Most agreed on something between policy reform and hostile retribution.
Similarly, on both the policy reform and hostile retribution sides, everyone seems to agree that the government is incompetent and needs to “pay attention.” Where attention should be paid is a core question in the debate on what to do about terrorism.
A huge part of this debate is no longer debatable: Bush signed the controversial anti-terrorism bill into law today. The government has given itself the most sweeping set of police powers since the United States was known as “The Colonies” and was under control of the British Parliament.
To paraphrase the greatest Briton of them all, The Bard, “How can I oppress thee? Let me count the ways.”
We can start with the government’s allegedly overwhelming need for secrecy. Suspected terrorists are subject to having their homes secretly searched for evidence of terror plots. Secret searches aren’t quite the same as, for example, unannounced searches. In an unannounced search, they arrive and you know it. In a secret search, they arrive and you don’t know at all.
It’s not unreasonable to imagine some deadbeat Federal agent who desperately wants glory, a promotion, a pay raise, greater preference with his boss or simply a successful case. Maybe it’s been awhile. Nobody knows what you–the deadbeat agent–are about to do. Nobody will rat you because any system of secrecy is favorable to government agents. So, to meet your material and/or socially constructed desires, go right ahead and plant evidence. No big deal.
There’s a far greater chance of some onerous prick planting evidence on you in the name of anti-terror than catching any real terrorist who knows invisibility inside-out and backwards.
In the realm of surveillance, the government’s ability to monitor suspects is truly airtight. Regardless of media(phone, email, brake lights, etc.) or location, warrants to track suspected terrorists are blank checks for apprehension and prosecution. The name of this type of warrant is called “pen register”. Absolute nonsense would accurately describe the name. “Pen register” is hardly a sinister term. In the original House version, these warrants were called “roving warrants.” Roving, you will agree, raises images of packs of wolves(or a squadron of eagles) ready to kill you.
It was a nice touch to a truly hardcore package of power. “Roving” let people know who is in charge. I wish they kept it.
The secrecy continues into the grand jury. The language of the law is explicit about grand jury hearings being held in secret and kept secret. To use the loaded question that the government uses against opposition to unconstitutional anti-privacy laws, “If Uncle Sham(represented by prosecutors and police) has nothing to be afraid of, why does he feel a need for secrecy?”
If you are secretly searched, secretly pen registered and secretly indicted, there is no need for trial–even a secret one. The AG John Ashcroft has the power to detain suspects of terror indefinitely. Because the AG, no matter who it is, is always a nice guy, indefinite detention is a last resort. Unless you are really bad, you will only be subjected to seven day cycles of detention.
AG Ashcroft calls the new law “airtight” security for Americans. He vows to use the law as far as he can take it.
This new law will be used well against terrorists and used effectively against internal opposition. The law can be summed up as a repeal of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. The individual has no more freedom, the press has no more freedom and you can have any religion you want as long as Jesus is the son of God and Mohammad is not a prophet. Forget your guns because that freedom is completely crippled. It’s only a matter of time before we quarter soldiers and, besides, isn’t airtight surveillance a valid equivalent? Protection against search and seizure is a joke. You might get due process if you are innocent. With indefinite detention, speedy trials are out of the question. With secrecy, public trials take the same highway to Hell.
There’s not much new under the sun. Even Aristotle knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. America has done the unthinkable:
We traded the blood, sweat and tears that gave us civil liberty for the illusion of a secure state.
