posted 02-28-2003 09:34 AM            

The Real New World Order
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center
February 27, 2003

You don't have to be a Ph.D. to know that we are now in a period of transition between the world as it existed at the end of World War II (the international organizations created at that time), and today's world that is made up of more democracies than have existed at any time since the founding of our own nation.

Emerging from the horror of WWII in which an estimated sixty million people died, the world was divided between the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. It was a world determined to avoid a third World War.

Out of this emerged the United Nations, an institution that was largely the creation of Soviet agents in the US State Department and their counterparts in Russia. The North American Treaty Organization also came into being to defend Europe against the potential of aggression from the Soviet Union that had created a buffer of satellite states to include East Germany. A "Cold War" existed until the fall of the Soviet Union.

Now both international organizations have come to the end of their usefulness. The UN has a long history of being unable to avert war anywhere and NATO, whose purpose was to defend Europe against the Soviet Union is no longer needed. The dithering of both over the prospect of war with Iraq are examples of their death throes.

The establishment of the European Union, composed of Socialist states, is already showing signs of strain as socialism contributes inexorably to that continent's economic problems and sovereign European nations discover their independence is of greater value than this new, huge bureaucracy.

The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, postulates that we now exist in a world divided between nations striving for order, i.e., the absence of war, and those for whom war is a necessity, i.e., dictatorships that require an external enemy to divert their populations from the fact they are enslaved. What Friedman overlooks, however, is that democracies do not go to war with one another, so it is vital that democracy be spread everywhere, that people be encouraged to overthrow despotic governments in favor of self-rule.

This, I would argue, is the purpose of the regime change in Iraq. It is not that Saddam Hussein is an evil man so much as there is a need to liberate the people of Iraq and others throughout the Middle East to bring about change that favors democratic self-rule. At present, in that region of the world, only Turkey and Israel represent democratic nations.

The history of the past half-century since WWII amply demonstrates that democracy can be achieved. The three nations who contested the power of free nations, Germany, Italy and Japan, were not only defeated, but thereafter put on the path to becoming democratic, free states. Following the United States' determined containment of Soviet efforts to spread Communism Poland freed itself of Soviet domination and Communism. The fall of the Soviet Union freed its satellite nations. Spain, after Franco died, became a democracy. Taiwan, freed of its oligarchy, became a thriving democracy.

In its annual report Freedom House, noted last December that "Freedom and democracy made significant worldwide program in 2002 despite threats posted by global terrorism." The report noted that "29 countries demonstrated forward progress in freedom, a dramatic increased from one year ago," cited Brazil, Lesotho, Senegal, and Yugoslavia, has having "entered the ranks of free countries."

Even in Muslim and Arab nations, Freedom House found progress in Bahrain, calling it partly free, while noting "civic ferment in Iran and Kuwait" as well as progress in Qatar. Progress was noted in Afghanistan, Albania, Comoros, Tajikistan, and Turkey.

These days, Freedom House considers 89 countries to be well on the path to democracy and freedom, up from 43 in 1972. I cited this because I believe there is a worldwide undercurrent, a demand from ordinary people, for greater freedom. This is why 56 countries are now considered partly free, an increase from 38 in 1972.

There are, however, 47 countries that Freedom House designates as not free, a sharp decline from 69 in 1972. These are nations in which basic political rights and civil liberties. Not surprisingly, almost 60 percent of those denied such rights and liberties, 2.2 billion people, live in the People's Republic of China.

As always, since its inception at the beginning of the last century, Communism remains the primary threat to democracy and freedom. The other area of the world that remains mired in despotism is the Middle East. And as the US sets about changing that, it is being opposed by the other hotbed of Socialism, the European Union.

It is the EU that has been one of the major financial supporters of the Palestinians in their ceaseless efforts to destroy Israel. It comes as no surprise that most of the Eastern bloc nations of the EU have lined up to support the US agenda for Iraq because they have fresh memories of Soviet domination.

So, a new world order is emerging and it is not one envisioned by the One World advocates who would put the United Nations in charge of the planet. It is a world divided between democracy and despotism.

As the UN and NATO slip into irrelevance and eventual dissolution, it has fallen to the United States to champion real freedom, real democracy. The spread of global communications, travel, and business will continue to enhance this effort.

posted 03-03-2003 11:47 AM            

Viva La Revolucion'..

posted 03-03-2003 11:51 AM            

PATRIOT ACT II VS. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_02_03/Patriot_Act_II_/patriot_act_ii_.html

The Patriot Act trashes precious constitutional protections but a follow-up law now being drafted goes even further.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, with the blessings of President Bush, is drafting a follow-up to the Patriot Act that would do even more violence to the Constitution.

The 80-page Justice Department draft of the Domes tic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 is labeled “confidential” but a copy was obtained by the Center for Public Integrity,

The Justice Department went to extreme lengths to hide its work, although the draft legislation is not classified information.

Viet Dinh, deputy attorney general for legal policies and principle author of the Patriot Act, said there is “an ongoing process to continue evaluating and re-evaluating authorities we have with respect to counter-terrorism.”

While the draft is dated Jan. 9, the House and Senate Judiciary committees were falsely told nearly a month later that no such legislation was being planned. When the center acquired and shared a copy of the draft, Barbara Comstock of the Justice Department explained lamely that they had “not presented any final proposal.”

Under Section 201, a federal court decision requiring the government to reveal the identities of people it has detained since the 9-11 terrorist attacks can be overturned. The draft reads:

“The government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until . . . the initiation of criminal charges”—no matter how long it takes.

If passed by Congress, it would be the first time in history that secret arrests are specifically permitted under American law.

Under Section 501, an American citizen who provides “material support” to a group the government has designated a “terrorist organization” can be stripped of his citizenship. Now, an American can lose his citizenship only by declaring a clear intent to abandon his country.

The proposed bill says an “intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.” It is unclear which bureaucrats would do the “inferring.”

“This section of the bill means that if you were to send a check for the legal activities of an organization and, unbeknownst to you, it has been labeled as a terrorist group, then you could be deported,” wrote syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff.

“Deportations of American citizens are not ‘phantoms of lost liberty,’ ” Hentoff wrote, referring to an Ashcroft comment that his critics are scaring “peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty.”

Under existing law, the FBI can collect DNA identification records of persons convicted of various crimes. But under Section 302 of the draft proposal, the attorney general or secretary of defense would be empowered to collect, analyze and maintain DNA samples of “suspected” terrorists.

All Americans would be in jeopardy as faceless bureaucrats label groups “terrorists” and grab citizens who may have the slightest association with a labeled group, according to Dr. David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington.

The proposed law “would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence-gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups,” Cole said.

Many rational observers predict that President Bush’s planned attack on Iraq will result in a dramatic increase in terrorist crimes in America. This, in turn, will provide Congress with a plausible excuse for additional legislation to “combat terrorism.”

posted 03-03-2003 03:53 PM            

btw why did you ban billy for posting a pic from art bell ?

posted 03-07-2003 02:44 PM            

The Bush-Nazi Connection
The Zanesville Signal, Zanesville, Oh
Thursday, July 31, 1941

=====================================================
Article showing Skull and Bones members, E. R. Harriman,
and Prescott S. Bush(The President's Grandfather.) tied to Hitler's funding and Banking.

posted 03-07-2003 04:17 PM            

After all the Bu$h's wouldn't do it again...would they?

posted 03-07-2003 05:52 PM            

My relatives?

Hmmm... well, my Grandfather was taken from his family in Holland for 2 years and worked in a nazi slave camp. My great Aunt was mudered by those same Nazis.

posted 04-09-2003 05:21 PM            

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

ASHINGTON, April 8 — Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

Advertisement

The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.

When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.

But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.

Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.

The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.

Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."

Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.

With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.

The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.

Advocates say the measure would make it easier for agents to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who are not connected to a foreign group and might have allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Republicans are upset because several Democrats say that when the measure reaches the Senate floor for a full vote, perhaps this week or later in the month, they plan to offer amendments that would impose tougher restrictions on the use of secret warrants.

Among other proposals, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants to add amendments that would require the Justice Department to give detailed information about how the secret warrants are being used and that could give defense lawyers access to some information generated by the warrants in criminal cases.

Republicans are countering with amendments of their own, including the idea of making the Patriot Act permanent.

Aides to Senator Hatch would not discuss his views on repealing the time limits in the law.

But an aide who demanded anonymity said of the "lone wolf" bill: "We support this bill as it is and that's how we want to see it passed. If the Democrats want to amend the bill, then we will offer an equal number of amendments to improve the bill as well. We hope the Democrats will stop holding this bill up."

Members of the Judiciary Committee, which Mr. Hatch leads, have been working in recent days to reach an agreement over the amendments that will be considered, officials said. But so far neither side appears willing to back down.

posted 04-09-2003 05:32 PM            

Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

forum discussing such...

posted 04-10-2003 01:08 AM            

seen an old movie on amc last friday night an appropriate quote from it was "there must be security for all, or no one is secure"...

replace security with the word freedom and it becomes an even larger question...or the question...