The Sunset of Liberty in the United States: Setting the Stage for Tyranny

By Lee Penn

Spring 2008, Journal of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP)

© SCP, 2008-2009

By courtesy of the SCP, this article has been released for posting on the Internet. Readers may order the magazine containing an illustrated version of this story by visiting the SCP web site, at http://www.scp-inc.org, or by calling the SCP office in Berkeley, California, at 510-540-0300, between 9am and 5pm Pacific Time. This magazine, Volume 31:4-32:1 (2008), also includes an article on Arthur C. Clarke (by Tal Brooke), and a story by Stephen Sizer on Dispensationalist “prophecy.”

In the United States, liberty and the rule of law are being extinguished, slowly but surely. The mutation of our political order, from constitutional republic to despotic empire, has been in progress for more than a century – and has greatly accelerated since September 11, 2001.

Sometimes, the descent to serfdom has been slow, or partially reversed – as in the 1920s and as in the period between the Vietnam War and the “peacetime” wars of the 1990s. However, the descent has been rapid during domestic and international crises. World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the most intense phase of the Cold War, and the War on Terror each have given governments new reasons to control us, and new ways to take our property, our liberty, and our lives. The form and appearance of the old Republic remain, but in essence we live in an authoritarian state. [1]

Bipartisan Attacks on Freedom

When accounts must be rendered for the squandering of our heritage of liberty, those who have supported the illiberal Left and the authoritarian Right will stand together in shame and dishonor. Democrats and Republicans alike can claim their share of the credit for the transformation of our nation into a regime that the Founding Fathers would view with horror. All three branches of government have assisted in the triumph of Caesar over the Republic. “Liberal” and “conservative” activists have each built their own sections of the prison walls that are being erected around us. Private enterprise has enthusiastically joined hands with Caesar, providing the authorities new technologies that are being used to monitor us and to control us. Lust for power is ubiquitous; cities, counties, and states are proving to be as rapacious, intrusive, and tyrannical in their own fiefdoms as is the Federal Government. Crusaders for moral reform, social uplift, and public health routinely call upon the police and the bureaucrats to make us be good, pure, and prudent – rather than re-evangelizing the people so that virtue, chastity, and wisdom might arise from hearts made new in Christ.

Page 1 of 31

The political, economic, and intellectual elites have taken the lead in this national deformation, but much blame must also be shared by “we, the people.” Again and again during the last 100 years, when the electorate has been offered political candidates who proposed to “bring America home” or to use the Constitution to limit government power, we have rejected them. From Eugene McCarthy to George McGovern to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel; from Robert Taft to Barry Goldwater to Ron Paul: all spoke the truth to power, and all lost.

The temptations offered by the despots are diverse, and most of us have eaten of the seductive fruit. Some of us are seduced by entitlement checks from Washington or by the offer of legal privilege as a recompense for historical-victim status; others seek a utopian Socialism-lite, inspired by ideas from Karl Marx, Margaret Sanger, and Hugh Hefner; others benefit from contracts to build and maintain weapons, prisons, and other government enterprises; others salivate on command when the spin-doctors and talk show hosts wave the flag and invoke “God and country.”

The present Presidential election cycle puts this predicament into clear view. Both Democratic candidates for their party’s nomination (as of April 2008) have left war with Iran “on the table.” [2] Hillary Clinton went further; on the morning of the April 2008 primary election in Pennsylvania, she calmly went on TV and told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she would “totally obliterate” Iran if they “foolishly consider” launching a nuclear attack on Israel. [3] The putative Republican nominee has sung of his desire to “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” [4] and envisions an American occupation of Iraq that may last up to a century. [5] In 2008, the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates who challenged our globalist foreign policy in a fundamental way were treated as jokes by the press and by the managers of the debates; these candidates got a tiny fraction of the total primary votes cast.

This article summarizes what has already been done to our liberty and our dignity. It focuses on the US, since most SCP readers live in this country – but the same process is occurring almost everywhere, and for the same reasons. In the 19th Century, those oppressed by European tyrants could flee over the ocean to America, to safety and to liberty. Now, there is no “America” for us to flee to. Any refuge that we might seek now (such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, or Central America, among others) are themselves vulnerable – to Washington, or to our Great Power rivals, or to home-grown upheaval or dictatorship. As C. S. Lewis foresaw in his novel That Hideous Strength, “The shadow of one dark wing is over all Tellus.” [6]

One might ask: why discuss worldly politics in this magazine (the Journal of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, where this article was originally published); what do the squalid doings of our rulers have to do with the defense of the Christian faith?

The first reason is theological. God created mankind in “his own image” (Gen. 1:27). Freedom of will (and its corollary, the ability to choose to love and follow God) is part of the nature given to us by our Creator. Therefore, political systems that reduce people to mindless robots are gravely sinning against God by overriding man’s gift from God, free will. When a once-free country begins to put such a system into place – and Caesar begins to demand what is due only to God (contrary to Mt. 22:21) – it is essential for Christians to speak out.

Page 2 of 31

The second reason is practical. The Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) is not “politically correct” for either the Left or the Right of today. Vigorous public defense of traditional, Biblical faith and open, rigorous opposition to harmful religious movements depend on freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech as they have existed in the US until now. It does not matter what the politics of tyranny would be; Communists, National Socialists, Islamists, Dominionists, other proponents of a confessional-Christian state, and “PC” social democrats (as in Canada and the European Union) would all agree that SCP would need to go. Therefore, to defend our own freedom and to continue carrying out SCP’s mission, we must now speak of politics as well as of theology.

Principled conservatives and liberals alike have diagnosed the authoritarian cancer growing on our body politic. Andrew Napolitano, a conservative Princeton-educated Superior Court judge in New Jersey (and since 1998, a top-level commentator on judicial affairs for Fox News), warns of the perils to liberty in his 2007 book, A Nation of Sheep. [7] Naomi Wolf, a Yale-educated liberal feminist journalist, echoed the same warnings in her 2007 book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. [8] When two intelligent observers – who, by conventional political standards, might be expected to agree on almost nothing – sound the same warning about the eclipse of freedom in America, it’s time for the rest of us to wake up, take heed, take action – and above all, to pray for God’s forgiveness and mercy.

War by decree: the essence of despotism

The essence of despotism exists when one man – our President, for example – can, without hindrance, take a nation to war. This has been the case in the US since 1945. Part of the reason is political, and part is an inevitable result of worldwide deployment of weapons of mass destruction.

First, consider the political basis for one-man war-making authority. Since 1941, no president has sought a Congressional declaration of war against an enemy. Some of our recent wars have been preceded by a Congressional stamp of approval (for example, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964, which President Johnson used as authority to escalate the Vietnam War, the authorizations for use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002, and the 2001 resolution authorizing use of force against terrorists and their supporters). [9] However, other American wars have begun by Executive decision – most notably, the Korean War, which President Truman believed to be covered by a UN resolution (granted at the behest of the US during a 1950 Soviet boycott of the Security Council), and US participation in NATO’s intervention against Serbia in 1999. [10] As a rule, Congressional leaders approved of the post-1945 wars at their start, and continued to do so unless the wars became costly, indecisive (or worse), and unpopular. In each of these wars, only a handful of Senators and Representatives opposed the Presidents’ war moves from the start. When push has come to shove, the little Caesars in the Congress have acted in concert with the big Caesar in the While House.

Politics aside, an irreversible change in technology has necessarily put war-making authority in the hands of one man (and any military officers to whom he may delegate authority). Nuclear

Page 3 of 31

weapons and ballistic missiles allow a foe to make a nation-destroying attack on the US with as little as 5-15 minutes warning time. (If an enemy can place hidden, ready-to-go atomic weapons on our soil or in our ports, he can make his first strike with no warning whatsoever.) No republican, deliberative process – and certainly, no consultation with Congress – can happen if such an attack seems to be imminent. As long as weapons of mass destruction and long-range rockets and aircraft exist, we are forced into accepting one man’s power to tell our military, “Go to war now.” Nero, Napoleon, and Hitler could not have asked for greater power over the lives of their own people and those of their foes than the ability to use nuclear weapons.

Signing statements – when Presidents act as judge in their own behalf

The leaders of the Executive Branch of the Federal government are not satisfied with having the de facto power to plunge us into war; they seek de jure confirmation of their plenary power, as well.

One way that recent Presidents have done this is to attach “signing statements” to the laws that they sign, giving their own interpretation of how the law is to be interpreted and enforced. [11] Often, these statements have contradicted Congressional attempts to limit Executive power. In effect, the President uses “signing statements” to tell the nation which laws he will obey, and which ones he will ignore.

As an example, George W. Bush attached a signing statement to a 2005 bill that would have limited the torture of those captured by the US in the War on Terror. His statement created a loophole in the law large enough to cover whatever he might wish to do:

“The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” [12]

In January 2008, the President attached this signing statement to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008:

“Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.” [13]

The provisions to which the President objected would have increased oversight over Federal contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, protected contractor staff who wished to inform Congress of wrong-doing, limited use of executive privilege claims against Congress, and prohibited funding that would establish permanent US military bases in Iraq. [14]

Page 4 of 31

Until Ronald Reagan, only 75 Presidential signing statements had been issued – on average, once every 2 years between the administrations of James Monroe and Jimmy Carter. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bill Clinton together issued 347 signing statements – about 17 or 18 a year. From January 2001 through the end of January 2008, George W. Bush has issued 157 signing statements – about 22 or 23 a year – reinterpreting 1,100 provisions of laws sent to him by the Congress.

Executive Branch legal staff from both parties have approved of this trend. In a 1986 Justice Department memo, Samuel Alito said that greater use of signing statements “would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.” [15] Then, under the Reagan administration, Alito was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General; now, he is a Supreme Court Justice, an appointee of Bush 43. In 1993, a Justice Department memo prepared for Bernard Nussbaum – then serving as Counsel to the White House under Bill Clinton – supported signing statements as a way to deflect Congressional attempts to limit Presidential power:

“a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.” [16]

In 2006, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly

“to declare that it ‘opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of presidential signing statements by claiming the authority . . . to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the president has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.’” [17]

US courts have not directly addressed the constitutionality of these Executive Branch modifications to the law. However, one of the attorneys who proposed their wide-scale use in 1986 moved onto the Supreme Court in 2006; draw your own conclusion about the future of this legal innovation.

The “Unitary Executive” – the Führerprinzip comes to the US

Executive power grabs in the name of “national security” are not new; Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all went beyond the traditional and Constitutional limits to their power, with national defense as their excuse. However, they lacked a comprehensive legal theory to justify their actions.

Thanks to inventive lawyers’ efforts during the last 20 years, future Presidents have a field-tested “Constitutional” framework that they will be able to invoke in defense of an imperial Presidency: the notion of the “unitary executive.” Thus far, three Supreme Court justices have accepted this expansive view of Presidential power: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. [18]

Page 5 of 31

John Dean, former legal counsel to President Nixon (and repentant Watergate conspirator), summarizes this view of Presidential power:

“Simply stated, the unitary executive means that the president controls the entire executive branch, including all of the independent regulatory agencies created by Congress. In national security matters, it designates the president as the ‘sole organ,’ and as commander in chief he alone can decide when to go to war or when to make peace. In its most extreme form unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the president what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters. It establishes a unilateral presidency that overpowers the other branches” and “nullifies the separation of powers, thus eliminating checks and balances. It is presidential autocracy, and a totally logical consequence of authoritarian conservatism.” [19]

As is evident in his signing statement for the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, President Bush claimed the authority of the “unitary executive” to nullify a Congressional effort to assure humane treatment of our captives in the War on Terror. [20] “Unitary executive” theory also rules out independent prosecutors (such as those who acted against the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton administrations), and requires that the independent regulatory agencies (established as such by Congress, including the Federal Election Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission) be strictly under White House authority.

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 found the “unitary executive” principle useful in limiting Federal regulation of business; Bill Clinton applied the same theory to increase such regulation. [21] In the future – and too late – the authoritarian-conservative activists who devised this expansive view of Presidential power will rue it bitterly; “He who digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back upon him who starts it rolling.” (Pr. 26:27)

Repealing the Magna Carta: arbitrary imprisonment and the erosion of habeas corpus

In Anglo-American law, prisoners have the right to invoke habeas corpus: the right to a court hearing in which the jailer must go before a judge, and must show lawful charges against the prisoner. [22] Without such charges, the prisoner shall be released. This writ has been part of our legal tradition since the Magna Carta was issued in 1215. Habeas corpus is written into Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, which defines the powers of Congress; the right cannot be suspended unless “in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” This right, which protects us – citizen and alien alike – from arbitrary imprisonment, is the foundation of our other rights.

Nevertheless, Lincoln and Grant suspended the writ in certain parts of the US during the Civil War and during Reconstruction. [23] In response, the Supreme Court ruled in 1866 (Ex Parte Milligan) that the President could not try US citizens before military tribunals if civilian courts were functioning. This same pattern (abrogation of habeas corpus during wartime, and a return to its observance after the war) occurred with World War I and World War II.

Page 6 of 31

With the War on Terror, habeas corpus is again under attack – and in this war, no peace treaty and post-war demobilization is in sight. George W. Bush told West Point graduates in 2006 (almost 5 years after the 9/11 attacks) that “We’re still in the early stages of this struggle for freedom,” [24] and he told the American Legion in 2004, “In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table.” [25] Thus, when the Administration seeks new wartime powers, we can expect that they (and their likely successors) will want to use them for the indefinite future. Welcome to the “Forever War”!

As Napolitano notes, the Administration has created

“an extrajudicial system that gives the executive branch exclusive power to decide that an individual is an ‘enemy combatant.’ Once designated as such, you are stripped of your habeas corpus rights; you can be whisked off to Gitmo [the military prison located at our base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba] and detained indefinitely without charge. If charges are eventually filed, the trial is heard before, not an impartial jury, but high-ranking military officers of the very government that captured you. Good luck getting access to independent civilian counsel, and forget about seeing the government’s evidence against you.” [26]

The Presidential plan is to hold detainees in locations outside US territory – and thus, presumably, outside the reach of the Constitution and the rule of law. Gitmo fills that requirement, as do our prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military tribunals that try the Guantánamo prisoners do not operate under the rules governing US civilian courts, or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); only the president of the 5-member commission is required to be a lawyer. Tribunal judges serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Defense; the government has a wide “National Security Privilege” to prevent disclosure of information that defendants and their counsel might need for their defense. As Napolitano said, “The defense can’t challenge the accuracy of any admissions or confessions because the sources, methods, and activities by which evidence against the accused was acquired are all classified.” [27] Information gained through coercion – what the civilized world calls torture – is admissible, just as it was under the Inquisition, the Nazis, and the Soviets.

Such a system can lead to indefinite detention – for any reason or none. [28] Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese journalist for al-Jazeera, a leading Arab news service, was scooped up by Pakistani intelligence agents in December 2001, and remained in a cell at Gitmo from June 2002 till May 2008. No evidence was ever produced that Sami was involved in a crime; his questioners were most interested in his work with the Arab news service. When he was released to the Sudan in 2008, Sami’s health had been broken; he had been tortured in American captivity, lost forty pounds, and needed immediate hospitalization. [29] Bilal Hussein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer for Associated Press, has been held by the US military without charges since April 2006. The US has jailed dozens of Iraqi journalists, and is holding them without charges.

Gitmo is the best-known part of our War on Terror prison archipelago, but we stash our captives elsewhere, as well – including such places as the “Salt Pit,” a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.

Page 7 of 31

Between 2004 and 2006, several Supreme Court cases struck against this lawless system. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled by 8-1 that Yaser Esam Hamdi, a US citizen by birth who had been held without charges as an “enemy combatant” since his 2001 capture in Afghanistan, had the right to due process of law – including notice of charges, access to an attorney, and a speedy trial. In Rasul v. Bush, the Court rejected the Administration’s claim that anyone held outside US territory is subject only to the authority of military tribunals, and ruled that Federal courts may hear Gitmo detainees’ habeas corpus petitions. In the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling, the Court found that the President did not have the right to establish military tribunals without Congressional approval, that the then-current plans for military tribunals violated US law and the Geneva Conventions, and that the Geneva Conventions do apply at Gitmo.

The Empire struck back in the fall of 2006, and won – with bi-partisan support. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress overruled the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions. This law grants the President full authority to establish military tribunals, exempts the tribunals from following UCMJ rules (including habeas corpus), and exempts enemy combatants from the Geneva Convention protections against torture and inhumane treatment. Anyone who the President (or his military appointees) decides has “engaged in hostilities, or purposefully or materially supported hostilities against the United States” may be held without charges as an “enemy combatant,” and does not have the right to challenge his detention in US courts. [30] Government agents gained protection from prosecution under the War Crimes Act. Citizens as well as aliens may be held under this law – and the definition of “materially supported hostilities” against the US is elastic. It includes Osama bin Laden’s alleged chauffeur now … and might include antiwar or pro-life activists tomorrow.

It’s tempting to say that these abuses are irrelevant to Americans – or to Christians – since the detainees are Muslim foreigners. However, Napolitano reminds us that setting this precedent has real consequences for all of us:

“The problem is that the executive branch and its military tribunals have full authority to declare someone a terrorist and send that person into perpetual imprisonment without any evidence that he or she is in any way involved with ‘terrorist activities.’” [31]

Furthermore, “‘terror’ is a vague and malleable thing to have a war against. If the present executive branch gets to decide who is a terrorist, what about the future enemies of future presidents?”

Let history provide the lesson: tyrants repeatedly use the threat of “terrorism” as an excuse to destroy liberty. In the Moscow Trials of 1936-1938, Stalin accused his former Bolshevik comrades of forming a “terrorist centre” led by Trotsky. [32] In 1933, Hitler used the pretext of the Reichstag Fire to suspend the German constitution – with the acquiescence of the Parliament. [33] This trumped-up terror scare came complete with the discovery by the Prussian police of Communist “documents” proving that the day after the fire, there were to have been “throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population.” [34]

Page 8 of 31

Torture and “extraordinary rendition”

Since 9/11, our country has crossed a grim moral threshold. Until then, it was against US policy to torture or abuse prisoners. It was done sometimes – as in the Philippines insurgency of the early 1900s, and during the Vietnam War – but it was not the norm. Now, like most of the rest of the world, we openly use “enhanced interrogation” on those captured by our military and (especially) our intelligence organs. In doing so, our government violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution (the ban on “cruel and unusual punishments”), similar provisions in all state constitutions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the War Crimes Act of 1996, the UN Convention Against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Another facet of “American exceptionalism” is gone forever; there is another indelible bloodstain on the walls of the former “city on a hill.”

Our tactics come straight from the how-to manuals for dictators: threats to rape prisoners’ wives, chaining prisoners to the wall or to the floor for days, exposing them to extreme temperatures in cells and interrogation rooms, forcing them to urinate and defecate on themselves, desecrating prisoners’ holy books, water boarding, beatings, extended solitary confinement, hanging prisoners by their hands (which the Inquisitors used, and called the strappado), use of loud, continuous music and flashing lights to disorient the captives, electrical shocks, sensory deprivation (blindfolding, ear blocks, dark cells, and the like), and deprivation of food and water.[35]

We handle some torture ourselves – but we also outsource this work to foreign countries. This policy goes back at least to 1995, when President Bill Clinton allowed the CIA to use “rendition” of prisoners. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, we had begun shipping suspected Islamic terrorists to other countries, to evade US laws and traditions that banned torture and that required due process of law for captives. Since 9/11, this practice has become commonplace. Hundreds of suspected terrorists and their supporters have been shipped to Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Uzbekistan, and secret prisons in Eastern Europe. As former CIA officer Robert Baer said, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear, never to see them again, you send them to Egypt.” [36] For prisoners, “rendition” often begins with abduction and a ride on a secret CIA charter plane, continues with 1984-style interrogation, and ends in a grave. We can guess at the extent of this dark traffic, but the details – including the identity, location, and fate of the prisoners – are classified.

Torture proponents justify their actions by invoking the “ticking time bomb” scenario, which occurs far more often on TV than it does in reality. But Col. Stuart Herrington, an Army officer who was sent by the Pentagon to assess detainee interrogation in Iraq, says that six out of ten prisoners will talk without any “enhanced interrogation” measures whatsoever. The rest will talk under torture – but they will say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear, true or false, in order to stop the torment. [37] When policymakers base their decisions on such tales, the result can be devastating for the nation. Baer gave an example: in 2002, Ibn al-Shaykh-al-Libbi, a paramilitary trainer for al-Qaeda, had been tortured for two weeks by US and Egyptian security forces. Al-Libbi broke under water torture, and told his questioners that Iraq had trained al-

Page 9 of 31

Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. President Bush used these statements to show that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were connected, to build a case for invading Iraq. From that lie, and others like it, a $3 trillion disaster has arisen.

Responsibility for the torture regime goes directly to the top of the US Government. Soon after 9/11, two senior Justice Department attorneys (David Addington, general counsel for Vice President Cheney, and John Yoo, another senior Justice Department staffer) prepared the “torture memos,” advising the President that the Geneva Convention’s protections for prisoners of war did not apply to our al-Qaeda, Taliban, and other captives in the War on Terror. The President could decline to enforce the 1996 War Crimes Act (which had been passed by a Republican Congress), and instead “could accept a new legal framework that was designed to allow room for extremely cruel interrogation methods without fear of prosecution for the commission of war crimes.” [38] White House Counsel (and future Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales accepted the torture memos as written. President Bush did the same, and attempted to keep the memos’ contents secret.

Public and Congressional outrage over the abuse of our captives led Congress to pass the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which banned inhumane treatment of prisoners in the War on Terror. But this bill – candidate McCain’s claim to fame as a leader against torture – is laced with human rights poison. The law limited military interrogations to the Geneva-compliant techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation – but did not apply this restriction to questioning by our intelligence agencies. In any case, the Field Manual is subject to revision – and to being classified as secret, in whole or in part – at any time that the Department of Defense chooses. The law also prevented American detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions, and limited their ability to appeal military tribunal rulings to US courts. As noted above, the President attached a signing statement to this law, promising to interpret it “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief.” [39] This created a loophole large enough to fit Gitmo and Abu Ghraib into.

No senior official has been brought to trial for the institutionalization of torture. Thus far, the only people tried for these actions were seven low-level American soldiers who were caught tormenting the inmates of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

That’s to be expected, since the torture of some “high value” prisoners by CIA interrogators was choreographed during dozens of meetings of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee during 2002. [40] These White House gatherings were attended by Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, and Attorney General John Ashcroft – or their delegates. They listened to presentations by the CIA Director, and gave instructions – including which “enhanced interrogation” techniques were to be used by whom, and on whom. Several days after the story broke, President Bush gave his public assent to what had been done: “I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” [41]

Page 10 of 31

Such is the state of the nation in the year of our Lord 2008: the President, the Vice President, and the leaders of the national security apparat agreed to use water boarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and other “enhanced interrogation” tactics to make our war captives talk. In so doing, our security forces violated international law, and used the same tactics that the Soviets had used extensively (not to gain actionable intelligence, but to gain false confessions for use during show trials). The political response: nil. The popular response: nil.

Emergency powers: the club in the closet

Americans were traumatized by the attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing anthrax scare, and they were horrified by the bureaucratic incompetence that agencies at all levels of government showed in their response to the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. The Bush administration has come forward with its own plan to show that it can respond with alertness, speed, and competence in any emergency: National Security Presidential Directive 51, issued in May 2007.[42] This decree – which remains in effect until it is modified or repealed by a future President – “establishes ‘National Essential Functions,’ prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations” [43] in response to a national emergency. There is to be

“a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President,” to “execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency.”[44]

This order – which envisions replacing the Constitution’s separation of powers with a body “coordinated by the President” during and after an emergency – may cover “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies” [45] as well as national catastrophes. The state of emergency would be declared by the President, and ended when he chooses to do so. Such a contingency plan – most of the details are classified – for governing the US by a centralized executive junta would be a dangerous tool even in the hands of wise, honest, and competent rulers. How will our Constitution and our freedom fare when the current (and prospective) occupants of the White House have such powers at their disposal?

In addition to the preceding decree, the President had – for just over a year – some formidable new powers granted to him by Congress in 2006. [46] Since 1878, under the Posse Comitatus Act, the Federal government had been prohibited from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Insurrection Act of 1807 likewise limited the President’s right to declare martial law inside the US. In October 2006, these restrictions were repealed by a Republican-majority Congress, allowing the President to declare an emergency and use the military to “restore public order” if “as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines” that “domestic violence” is so severe that the “constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.” In one of the rare rollbacks of Bush-era aggrandizement of Presidential power, these provisions

Page 11 of 31

were repealed as part of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008. Thus, the traditional limitations on declaration of martial law within the US have been in place again since January 2008.

Making the Fourth Amendment obsolete: searches without warrants

Under the rule of George III, American colonists were subject to search at any time by British soldiers or tax collectors. [47] The officials could – without any judicial review – prepare a writ of assistance, allowing them to enter any private building, and to search for and seize any item they defined as contraband. The searchers were not accountable for any damage they caused, and full cooperation with the search was mandatory. The Fourth Amendment was written to ban such self-authorized, open-ended searches. Now, under the rule of a new George, the “writ of assistance” has returned in several forms.

The PATRIOT Act passed in the fall of 2001 with the overwhelming support of Senators and Representatives from both parties, and it was renewed in 2006 with smaller – but still decisive – majorities. [48]

Under this law, Federal agents can prepare National Security Letters (NSLs), giving them the right to demand information about their targets from any government agency or private business. [49] These powers were expanded in December 2003, in a provision buried deep within the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004. Agents can listen to phone calls, read personal e-mail, obtain records of books checked out from the library, and view the transactions that people make with private businesses. Senior agents from the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Defense can obtain NSLs without judicial approval, if the agency finds that the “information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” [50] No judicial review of these letters is required. It is a felony for anyone who receives an NSL to notify anyone (including the target of the investigation, or civil liberties advocates, or an attorney, or a judge, or the press) of the existence of the investigation or of the NSL. Those who violate the terms of the gag order can go to prison for up to 5 years.

Many NSLs are issued, and the government’s spies do not abide by their own rules about using them. In 2007, at the request of Congress – and over the objections of the White House – the Justice Department carried out an audit of NSL usage. U.S. citizens were the target of 53% of the NSLs; from 2003 to 2005,143,074 such letters were issued. (The real number may be higher; a review of individual cases found 22% more NSLs issued than were listed in the records released by the agency.) Within a 10% sample of NSLs, there were more than 1,000 law violations: failure to obtain proper authorization for the NSL, or collection of data to which the agency was not entitled.

Additionally – and note that the following PATRIOT Act provisions can be used in any criminal investigation, and are not limited to hunts for terrorists and spies:

       Under Section 213, the Feds can search homes and offices without notifying the target until after the search is complete, if there is “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect “may have an adverse result” in developing a case. [51]

Page 12 of 31

       Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to obtain personal records on anyone – US citizen or not – from companies that transport people or goods, from public accommodations (restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and so forth), storage facilities, and vehicle rental agencies.[52] Previous limits on such searches – such as showing “probable cause” that the target is an agent of a foreign power – were swept away.

       Under the authority of Section 216, a government agent can install a tracking system, “Carnivore,” with any Internet service provider, if he certifies that the information he seeks is “relevant to an ongoing criminal activity.” [53] No search warrant or proof of probable cause is needed for the Feds to intercept and monitor all on-line activity of ISP or network users.

       Under Section 805, anyone who provides “expert assistance or advice” to any organization that the government considers to be a “foreign terrorist group” can be convicted. [54] Georgetown law professor David Cole has said that this section “gives the government incredible discretion to go after people without proving they took part in any criminal or violent act.” [55] Doctors, lawyers, insurance agents, teachers, dentists, and other specialists and professionals can go to jail under this provision, even without proof that they were complicit in any terrorist actions. In short, it may be a crime for American doctors to treat wounded Palestinians or Iraqis or Irishmen or Basques, if their patients are members of the wrong political faction.

Federal invasion of citizens’ privacy is not unique to the present Administration or to the War on Terror; the practice has a bipartisan history going back to World War II. [56] A Senate investigative committee led by Frank Church (D-ID) found that the FBI and the CIA had collected more than 500,000 files on American citizens and domestic organizations, using illegal wiretapping, opening private mail, and infiltration of groups by informers. The Senate report found that “each administration from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Richard Nixon has authorized wiretaps that provided the White House with purely political or personal information unrelated to national security.” [57] Targets of these illegal wiretaps included “journalists, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, senators, congressional staff members, law firms, lobbyists, and members of the general public who were critical of White House policy.” [58]

One of Congress’ responses to these revelations was to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. [59] The law requires that all government agencies obtain a warrant before conducting domestic electronic surveillance; to obtain such warrants, the government must show probable cause that a crime has been committed. The bill also created a secret court – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – to manage requests for spy warrants against suspected foreign intelligence agents in the US. FISC has approved almost every request for a wiretap warrant made by government agencies. From 1979 to 2006, it received 22,990 warrant requests, and approved all but five of them. Warrantless surveillance of foreign agents is allowed only if there is no “substantial likelihood” that it will capture communications with Americans. Foreign agents may be deported on the basis of findings from FISA surveillance, but evidence collected against them cannot be used for prosecution.

Page 13 of 31

Such oversight has proven to be too restrictive for the Bush administration. As the New York Times revealed in December 2005, President Bush had – since 2002 – allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the e-mail and telephone communications of people within the US – citizen or not – with people abroad. [60] Under this secret program, there was no need to show probable cause that the people being spied upon were threats to national security or in violation of the law. In response to this revelation, a suit was filed against the NSA spy program in January 2006. The suit was thrown out by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal in July 2007; the plaintiffs were not able to prove that they were victims of NSA espionage, and any records needed to prove this are classified under the state secrets doctrine.

Shutting out court inquiries with the “state secrets” doctrine

Ever since the Truman administration – and especially, since Watergate – Americans have become familiar with clashes between Congress and employees of the Executive Branch. [61] Under Presidents of both parties, it has become common for the White House to stonewall Congressional requests for information with a claim of “executive privilege” – the claim that policy-making discussions and documents produced within the Executive should be kept confidential, to ensure freedom of discussion and decision-making in the public’s interest. Many crimes and abuses have been hidden by this means.

During the last 30 years, Presidents of both parties have added a new weapon in their battle for supremacy over the other branches of the Federal Government: using the “state secrets” doctrine to quash litigation related to national security issues. [62] The doctrine emerged during the Korean War – but it was used only 4 times between 1953 and 1977 (about once every six years). Between 1977 and 2001, it was used more than 50 times (about twice a year). Between 2001 and 2005, the privilege was claimed 23 times (about six times a year). In April 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the State Secrets Protection Act, to limit the abusive use of this doctrine. However, since the bill had almost no Republican support, its future in a closely divided Senate is doubtful.

In January 2006, three AT&T subscribers filed a class action suit against the phone company, seeking a halt to the firm’s cooperation with the “Daytona” program: massive, warrantless, illegal surveillance by the NSA of Americans’ phone calls and e-mail. As an AT&T employee testified, “the sheer volume of data being collected makes it difficult to believe that Daytona only targets suspects in terrorist investigations.” [63] The government came to AT&T’s side as a co-defendant, and urged the San Francisco Federal District Court to dismiss the case under the state secrets doctrine. In July 2006, Judge Vaughn Walker (who had been appointed by President Reagan) allowed the case to go forward nevertheless (recognizing that some evidence might not be obtainable because it was classified.) This was the first refusal by a Federal judge to accept a Justice Department claim under the state secrets doctrine. Litigation is ongoing – which is noteworthy in itself, in a time when many institutions automatically say “how high” when someone tells them to jump in the name of “national security.” (The case will become moot if –as the White House wishes – Congress gives retroactive immunity to telecom companies for cooperating with illegal surveillance. As of April 2008, the Senate supported providing this legal cover, but debate on this issue was ongoing in the House.)

Page 14 of 31

Presumption of guilt: punishment without trial

The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution say that no one should be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and that the accused has “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” as well as the right to “assistance of counsel for his defense.”

All levels of government are making these guarantees obsolete.

Cities, counties, and states nationwide have been installing speed cameras and red light cameras since the 1980s, using them to issue revenue-generating tickets to the car’s registered owner. [64] In some cases, the politicians share a portion of the camera-generated fines with the private firm that installs and maintains the devices. Despite some adverse local court decisions, the usual practice is that when the car owner gets a camera-issued ticket in the mail, he bears the burden of proving his innocence. In 1927, the Supreme Court had found in Tumey v. Ohio that judges were more likely to find a person guilty if their own budgets increased thereby; the Court threw out the defendant’s conviction, since he did not receive a fair trial. Application of this rule – or of the traditional requirements for the right to confront accusers, the right to a jury trial in cases involving more than $20, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – would close the cameras’ eyes nationwide. Given the greed of politicians and the passivity of the public, do not bet the rent on this outcome.

With asset forfeiture, governments have additional power to impoverish their targets without proving a criminal case against them. [65] As the Department of Justice forfeiture web page explains, “Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals.” [66] Laws at the Federal, state, and local levels allow police and prosecutors to go to civil court to take property that they deem to be proceeds of crime, or instrumental in committing a crime – even if the owner is never convicted of the crime in question. This practice began in the 1970s and 1980s with laws aimed at organized crime and sale of illegal drugs – but now, such penalties can apply to lesser offenses, as well (for example, making a false statement on a student loan application, or a Medicare billing error that the government deems fraudulent). Often, forfeitures go unchallenged, due to the high cost of making a legal defense; the burden of proof is on the owner to prove that he is innocent and that the seized property is rightfully his. During the 1990s, 80% of property forfeited to the Federal Government was taken from owners who were never charged with a crime; seizures over the last two decades totaled about $7 billion. Some of the Federal abuses of this power during the 1980s and 1990s were curbed by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 – but many onerous provisions remain in the Federal code.

Eminent domain and the Kelo case: stealing private property to benefit special interests

Ownership of private property – for those without political connections and privilege – is also on the endangered-rights list.

Page 15 of 31

In a June 2005 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the condemnation of Suzanne Kelo’s family home (and the homes of fourteen of her neighbors) by the City of New London, Connecticut, so that the city could sell her house to the New London Development Corporation. [67] In its 5-4 ruling on the Kelo v. City of New London case, the Court found that governments can take property from its owner and transfer it to another private party, as long as there is a “public benefit.” The City argued – successfully – that it needed to seize the homes of Kelo and her neighbors because the area was economically depressed, and the New London Development Corporation’s project would bring prosperity (and greater tax revenue) to New London. Before the Kelo case, governments could use eminent domain only to take private property for government use, as long as they offered “just compensation.”

The Kelo ruling provoked widespread outrage, and actions at the state and Federal level to prevent similar abuses of eminent domain. Arizona, New Hampshire, Florida, Iowa, and Michigan have amended their laws to prevent similar property seizures. One year after the Kelo case, President Bush issued an executive order forbidding the Federal government from using eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another. (There are some Constitutional rights that the 43rd President still upholds.) However, most eminent domain cases involve states and localities, not the Federal government, so Bush’s initiative will have little effect.

Attacks on First Amendment rights

Now, as during previous wars and “scares,” Americans’ rights to gather in public and to petition the government are under attack. [68] During the July 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, the city police Intelligence Squad illegally spied on protesters who – as the police’s own files show – had no intention of breaking the law. During the convention, the police arrested more than 1,800 people on minor charges (the kind that usually lead to issuance of a summons), and held the arrestees up to two days for fingerprinting. Court battles over these arrests continue. One activist, Robert Lederman, was arrested for writing slogans on the sidewalk in chalk; his offense was to write “God Bless America” and “Giuliani=Police State” in front of police barricades. The courts later threw out the charges against Lederman. New York City sends plainclothes operatives into demonstrations, who pretend to be protesters while videotaping the participants for the authorities. With these actions, New York police have returned to the 1960s-era practices of COINTELPRO and other government efforts to quash dissent.

Other arrests of peaceful protestors reveal the intolerance of some law enforcement officers. [69] On June 29, 2007, Bill Talen – also known as “Reverend Billy,” of the anti-war, anti-corporate “Church of Stop Shopping” – was arrested in Manhattan on charges of harassment of a public official. His offense: reading the First Amendment through a bullhorn to police during “Critical Mass,” a monthly ride-in by bicyclists. On April 21, 2000, Doris Haddock, a 90-year old liberal activist, was taken away in handcuffs from the US Capitol Building in Washington DC. Her offense: reading the Declaration of Independence aloud, as part of a demonstration for campaign finance reform. Demonstrating inside the Capitol building is against the law, and carries a jail

Page 16 of 31

term of up to six months; a sympathetic judge sentenced her to time already served in police custody, and $10 in court costs.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech does not yet face the sustained assault that characterized the Civil War (when antiwar newspapers were closed by the military, and editors were arrested) or the First World War (when any public opposition to U.S. intervention was likely to result in espionage or sedition charges).

People can march and face minor charges – but even the largest protests might as well not occur if the press will not cover them. And protests are less likely to occur at all if the government can discreetly intimidate reporters so that critical stories never see the light of day. This process is underway now. [70]

Brian Ross, an ABC reporter who broke critical stories about the US torture program and maneuvers for war with Iran, was warned by a friend in law enforcement that “We know who you’re calling. … You’ve got to be careful here; they’re tracking you.” [71] Since Ross is being wiretapped – and knows it – he has been forced to switch from telephone interviews to in-person interviews with his sources. These circumstances would impede the work of any journalist.

In 2006, John Wolf – a blogger who filmed part of a violent anarchist protest that occurred in San Francisco in July 2005 – faced a Federal demand that he surrender his data to a grand jury. [72] The pretext: the demonstrators damaged a police car with a bottle rocket – and the auto was partially funded by the Federal government. Wolf refused, and was jailed until April 2007. (He posted his video on his blog, after being promised that he would not have to testify about the footage.) This 226-day confinement is the longest term ever served by any US journalist for protecting his sources.

The New York Times broke the news in December 2005 about the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program – but they pulled a few punches, and delayed publication by a year at government request: “The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.” [73] Nevertheless, many conservative blogs denounced the Times as the “Paper of Treason,” and Attorney General Gonzales told ABC in May 2006 that “There are some statutes on the books” that could be used to prosecute papers that publish classified information.

In any event, the government need not arrest editors or set up formal censorship – if the press is willing to censor itself, and if it uncritically disseminates government-approved disinformation to its audience. [74] This occurred with the false US claims that Saddam Hussein had been buying uranium from Nigeria for a nuclear weapons program, that Iraq had enough mobile biochemical weapons labs to produce massive quantities of anthrax and botulism toxin, and that senior Iraqi officials had met in Prague with al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta. The lies had wings during the run-up to war in 2003, and the mainstream media – print and electronic alike – helped

Page 17 of 31

them fly. In April 2008, the New York Times revealed that the supposedly objective “military analysts” who became media fixtures from 9/11 onward are part of a

“Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. … The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”[75]

The Transportation Safety Administration and “Real ID” – closing down freedom to travel

One of the hallmarks of the USSR was the internal passport, which defined where people could live and where they could travel, and which – like any ID – had to be shown to the police on demand. Until recently, a hallmark of life in the US had been the ability to travel anywhere within the US without having to pass through police check points. Under the guise of preventing terrorism, this freedom has become a thing of the past. If present trends continue, there’s an internal passport in our future – and maybe the “powers that be” will be candid about their intent, and rename our country the USSA.

Now that the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has become entrenched in our nation’s airports, America’s rich and middle-class travelers have accepted arbitrary luggage regulations, warrantless and random searches, uncompensated confiscation of “contraband” (ranging from nail clippers to large tubes of toothpaste) and no-fly blacklists as routine. [76] Such indignities – similar to those long meted out to residents of ghettos and barrios – are now standard for all. Because Richard Reid, a lone Islamic terrorist, tried to blow up a flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001 with a bomb hidden in his shoes, all travelers must remove their shoes to go through the security gates.

In August 2006, 24 Muslims from the UK were arrested on suspicion of planning to carry liquid explosives (hidden in sports drink bottles) onto airplanes, in order to destroy as many as 12 flights from the UK to the US and Canada in midair on August 16, 2006; their trials were beginning as this article went to press in April 2008. [77] Even though none of the suspects had yet built a bomb or bought a plane ticket, and some did not have passports (which would have been needed to board international flights), we still live with the aftermath: the ban on carrying on regular-size bottles of shampoo, tubes of toothpaste, or soft drinks onto airplanes.

Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, captures the TSA experience that all air travelers share:

“America is in line at the airport. America has its shoes off, is carrying a rubberized bin, is going through a magnetometer. America is worried there is fungus on the floor after a million stockinged feet have walked on it. But America knows not to ask. America is guilty until proved innocent, and no one wants to draw undue attention. America left its ticket and passport in the jacket in the bin in the X-ray machine, and is admonished. America is embarrassed to have put one one-ounce moisturizer too many in the see-

Page 18 of 31

through bag. America is irritated that the TSA agent removed its mascara, opened it, put it to her nose, and smelled it. Why don’t you put it up your nose and see if it explodes? America thinks. And, as always: Why do we do this when you know I am not a terrorist, and you know I know you know I am not a terrorist? Why this costly and harassing kabuki when we both know the facts, and would agree that all this harassment is the government’s way of showing ‘fairness,’ of showing that it will equally humiliate anyone in order to show its high-mindedness and sense of justice? Our politicians congratulate themselves on this as we stand in line. All the frisking, beeping and patting down is demoralizing to our society. It breeds resentment, encourages a sense that the normal are not in control, that common sense is yesterday.” [78]

One victim of the security regime was Monica Emmerson, a former Secret Service agent. [79] In June 2007, she was traveling from Reagan National Airport in Washington DC with a 19-month-old child, and was carrying the child’s sippy cup with 4 ounces of water. A TSA agent demanded that she leave the security zone and empty the cup; there is a dispute over whether Emmerson then deliberately dumped the water from the cup onto the floor, or whether she was manhandled into doing so by a policeman on the scene. She was made to get down on the floor to clean up the mess, and was then hauled off by four police and three TSA agents, questioned for forty minutes, and made to miss her flight. The TSA defends its actions, and claims that its videotape of the incident proves that its “officers display professionalism and concern for all passengers.” Let us be grateful for small favors; Emmerson was not arrested or summoned to court. What’s worse is the public reaction: a Washington Post blog for parents discussed the incident, and over 60 people replied. The vast majority of the respondents scolded Emmerson for failure to know and obey the rules; very few expressed outrage that Americans are subjected to such pointless harassment. It’s a case in point: the spirit of the people, which once defied official tyranny, is now broken. Peggy Noonan may be outraged by the idiotic intrusiveness of the TSA – but many of her fellow citizens are not.

TSA searches are inconvenient and embarrassing – but landing on the TSA’s secret no-fly list can lead to intensive searches and ID checks at airports, or to being refused the “privilege” of flying at all. [80] As of September 11, 2001, the list contained 16 names – and by October 2006, according to 60 Minutes, it had metastasized to 44,000 people. It is not just the “undesirables” themselves who are harmed. Anyone of the same name will be required to jump through hoops to prove that they are not the person targeted by the list; this “false positive” status may affect as many as 500,000 people. The first indication most travelers might have that things are amiss is that they are unable to use airport kiosks or the Internet to get boarding passes; for them, the real “fun” begins when they are sent to the airline counter to begin proving that they are not a terrorist. The criteria for placing people on the list are secret, and there is no clear process for people to get themselves removed permanently from it.

In 2004, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) wound up on the no-fly list in 2004, because he had the same name as a terror suspect who had used the alias “T. Kennedy.” It took him three personal calls to the Secretary of Homeland Security to get off the list – a means of redress that very few Americans have. Others caught in the same “false positive” trap include children under age 5, a US Marine who was returning from deployment in Iraq, Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), James Moore (author of Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush

Page 19 of 31

Presidential), David Nelson (an actor on Ozzie and Harriet), and war critic Walter Murphy, a former Marine officer and professor of jurisprudence at Princeton.

As the Federal government has done, local authorities imitate. In July 2005, in response to terrorist bombings in London, the New York City Police Department began random, warrantless searches of purses, briefcases, backpacks, and other luggage carried by subway passengers. [81] Anyone may be subjected to the delay and humiliation of a public search of their possessions, for any reason or none. Those who do not consent to the search must leave the station, and forego their travel plans. A Federal suit against this violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” was fruitless. In August 2006 a Federal judge discovered a “special needs exception” to the Constitution, because of “imminent terrorist threats.”

Travel on the subway has become a “privilege,” like flying and driving. The next step could only be to require biometric licenses to walk, or to use bicycles or scooters – with a stringent background check as part of the process.

That’s not a joke; it’s tomorrow’s reality. [82] Welcome to REAL-ID, the 2005 law that was introduced by a Republican, passed with bipartisan support, and demands that states issue everyone new driver’s licenses and ID cards. Originally, the law was to take effect in May 2008 – but every state has received an extension from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), so the new standards for ID do not come into force until 2011. Those born after December 1, 1964 must obtain compliant IDs by December 1, 2014; those who are older have until December 1, 2017 to obtain new cards. When the rules take full effect, anyone who wishes to take an airplane flight or a train, or enter a Federal building or a national park, must have a state-issued ID card that meets the Federal standard. The new cards must include the bearer’s full legal name, signature, photograph, date of birth, sex, driver’s license/ID card number, and home address. They must also have new security features to impede tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the card; in North Carolina, the security features include a hologram of a map of the entire North American continent. Many state legislatures have passed non-binding resolutions opposing REAL ID, but the decision to comply with DHS standards is generally left to each state’s governor. Opponents warn that the new ID cards will contain “common machine-readable technology” that will enable their use as personal tracking devices, that the multibillion dollar costs of this program will fall on each of us as drivers and taxpayers, and that the cards (and associated databases of personal data, which will be shared across state lines) will be an irresistible target for identity thieves.

Yes, Big Brother is watching

It might be expected that government bureaucrats and agents care nothing about individual privacy. But – on the evidence – the private sector also avidly collects personal information and uses it willy-nilly for its own convenience and profit. [83] Disney World takes visitors’ fingerprints – supposedly, to keep people from entering with passes that they had illegally bought from others. Busch Gardens and Water Country USA go one better, and take digital scans of each visitor’s hands. Google has put Street View on the Net, allowing searchers from around

Page 20 of 31

the world to view people – and their homes and belongings, if they can be seen from the street – on live camera. Napolitano says,

“new Web sites are springing up almost daily with the sole purpose of using Street View to catch folks in compromising positions. Some images include people urinating on the side of the street, others walking into adult bookstores, and still others being pulled over by the police.”[84]

Any personal data that a private company collects is available for requisition by a Federal order – and can also be easily stolen by thieves and hackers.

We are being watched, ever more pervasively. [85] A study by the New York Civil Liberties Union found that visible private and governmental surveillance cameras increased in Greenwich Village and SoHo from 142 in 1998 to 2,227 in 2005. Just because we are being watched does not mean that we are safe. Britain has a world record concentration of more than 4 million cameras to watch streets, government buildings, parks, and mass transit. All these ever-watchful eyes did not warn of, nor interrupt, the deadly terrorist bombings that occurred in London on July 7, 2005.

New techniques are under development to ensure that we can be watched everywhere, all the time – without a warrant, of course. [86] Some have been developed by the private sector on their own; others have been elicited by the post-9/11 gusher of government security contracts. Some of the following devices and systems are still on the drawing board; others are time-tested and widely used. The following summary scratches the surface of what is being done now, and what could be done in the future if present technical and political trends continue.

Software-defined radio captures the stray radiation emitted by computers, and can translate these radio waves into copies of every document, image, and Web site that appears on the screen of the targeted computer. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is developing software that can identify individuals by their gait – or by their scent. Dentists are working on ways to identify people by the ribonucleic acid (RNA) in their saliva. Iris scans – already a standard option for biometric security ID – can now monitor twenty peoples’ irises per minute as they walk through a doorway. Face recognition software likewise advances; some systems use infrared light to make a topographical map of the face, and others analyze individuals’ facial skin, down to the pores, wrinkles, and blemishes. In the UK, security cameras can deliver public reprimands from the monitoring station to those seen littering or committing vandalism. With electronic toll payment systems (such as EZ-Pass), the authorities can know exactly who travels over which toll roads and bridges, and when; such knowledge was virtually unobtainable when commuters all paid tolls with cash. With grocery store and warehouse store “club cards,” anyone can learn who buys what kind of food, and who buys liquor and cigarettes. Grocers rarely offer sale prices to the general public as they used to before the 1980s – so customers accept the loyalty cards, and implicitly agree to the creation of a full profile of their buying habits. New cell phones include GPS tracking capability, so phone company and government officials can know each cell phone user’s location when the phone is turned on. It gets better yet: scientists can turn

Page 21 of 31

cell phones on remotely, using them – without notice or warrant – to monitor what they hear. It may be that our electronic “best friend” is also a Federal spy.

Napolitano summarizes the data net that holds us all as we move toward being a surveillance society:

“The amount of your last annual bonus? THEY KNOW! Your company password to log in at work? THEY KNOW! The ATM fee you accepted at your local corner deli? THEY KNOW! The attractive new coworker you Googled? THEY KNOW (and could give you her phone number)! Afraid of pain, so you go to the new sedation dentist in town? THEY KNOW! Lactose intolerant? THEY KNOW (because you use your credit card to pay for your groceries and prescriptions)! Didn’t make your high school varsity basketball team? THEY KNOW! Sent a Christmas package to Grandma marked ‘fragile’? THEY KNOW! Late returning a library book in college? THEY KNOW! Just sped through a yellow light? THEY KNOW (and have the picture to prove it)! They will know whom you are contacting and who is contacting you, and precisely where you are located at any point at any time. … They have more information about you stored digitally than you probably have stored about yourself!”[87]

The sunset of liberty, with Americans’ passive acquiescence

Judge Napolitano characterizes the current Administration’s record thus:

“With President George W. Bush at the helm, the executive branch has reached well beyond the limits of its authority and has launched a full-on assault on the natural rights and fundamental liberties protected from interference by our Constitution. Over the course of his two terms, nearly every Constitutional right has suffered, except for those of gun owners.”[88]

He adds,

“The great dictators in history started small. First they create a terrifying threat. Under the fog of fear, they then begin chipping away at rights and liberties, in order to preserve ‘national security.’ They create prison camps that operate outside the law. They set up a domestic surveillance system and make sure the people know they are being watched. Then they begin harassing those who disagree with their policies or display insufficient political loyalty, such as intellectuals, politicians, and even government officials who fail to toe the line. Next they infiltrate and take control of the press. Finally they assert ‘emergency authority’ to suspend the rule of law. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it?”[89]

Americans have – to a large degree – given consent to these abuses with their silence. The massive demonstrations and civil disobedience of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war are generation-old history. In some instances – as described above – Congressional action and court rulings have limited the damage that the authoritarians have done to our Constitution. However, even after voters gave majorities to Democrats in the House and Senate in 2006, most of the evil innovations remain in place – and impeachment of the President, the vice-President, and members of his Cabinet is “off the table,” [90] as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in 2006.

Page 22 of 31

Whoever is elected as President in 2008 will inherit an office with far more unaccountable power than George W. Bush had gained at his January 2001 inauguration. Those who trust the current Administration to use its powers wisely should never have forgotten (even though it seems that they did, completely) that the political pendulum always swings: left to right, and back again.

The road ahead: next stop, serfdom

For those who love liberty, the current situation is bad. Barring a miracle – which we hardly deserve, given our conduct as a people – worse almost certainly lies ahead.

       New wars could easily occur – involving Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Taiwan, Serbia, Kosovo, Russia and the former Soviet republics, Venezuela, Cuba, or others. Such events will give any President a new reason to increase “security” at the expense of our freedom.

       The American and world economy is unstable. Two necessities – food and energy – are showing severe price inflation, even as other parts of the economy stagnate or crumble due to the collapse of the credit bubble of recent years. Additional policy missteps, bad luck, panic, or intervention by a hostile power could turn the present uncertainty into a financial rout, followed by a depression. With an economic crisis, there will certainly be demands (from almost all political directions) for increased government control of the economy.

       Random, unpredictable events can occur at any time – epidemics, natural disasters, massive crop failures, and the like. With the world’s economy, social order, political order, and ecosystem under stress, any of the just-mentioned wild-card events could create large-scale crises without warning. If there are new emergencies of any kind, we can expect new crackdowns as part of the response by officialdom.

       Added to these perils is the reality of the American body politic. As the 2008 Presidential race has shown, the overwhelming majority of the electorate likes the welfare/warfare state, in one form or another. Democrats and Republicans differ upon which wars they wish to carry out, and upon which corporations and voting blocs they wish to shower largesse – but either way, the Leviathan will continue to grow, by popular demand.

Liberty, prosperity, and a reasonably well-functioning political system have been the experience of a majority of Americans for most of our country’s history. This shared history is the basis of the consensus story that we tell ourselves and the rest of the world about our country. But these good things came from God. What He granted, He can withdraw – and it appears that this is occurring now. The sufferings – generalized oppression, mass privation, and war on our own soil – that Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa know firsthand may soon be our lot, as well.

Page 23 of 31

What is to be done?

In such a time, when it seems almost inevitable that the foundations of our lives will shake, what are we to do as faithful Christians? Scripture and Christian tradition offer some suggestions:

       Remain awake, watchful, and sober, discerning the signs of the times. Prayer, repentance, and attentiveness to the Holy Spirit are prerequisites for such discernment.

       Be alert to deception, especially political and spiritual deceit. In the age of the universal Lie, holding fast to the Truth will be essential for spiritual survival – for us and for anyone who might hear our message.

       Shun earthly “messiahs,” whether they come as leftist champions of equality and justice, or as traditionalist restorers of virtue, order, and Godliness. Anyone who claims that they can save us if we join their movement, obey them unreservedly, and grant them extra power “for the duration” is a servant of the “prince of this world” (John 14:30). The greater the promises that would-be leaders make to us, and the more grandiose the claims that they (and their followers) make on their own behalf, the less we should support them.

       Do not be shocked into despair and loss of faith because of the trials that we face. God is sovereign, and knows our strengths and weaknesses. He called us into being in this time and place, and will not allow us to be tested beyond our strength (1 Cor. 10:13). The necessary graces will be given to us, as we need them (Mt. 7:11, 34). Remember that – even if the worst earthly events occur, and America ceases to be recognizable as the land we once grew up with, knew, and loved – we have an eternal homeland with Christ, in His Kingdom (Heb. 11:14-16).

       Take up only spiritual weapons; as St. Paul said, “since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.” (1 Th. 5:8) There is no indication, anywhere in the New Testament from Pentecost onward, that believers should take physical arms against evil rulers, or that they should stockpile weapons for their own defense.

       As the trials begin and increase, we can expect our opponents – and others around us – to behave atrociously, and to provoke us to the point of wrath. Be aware of this temptation in advance, so that we do not fall into the trap of seeking earthly revenge (Romans 12:19-21).

       Act with love, obeying Christ’s commands as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:1-7:28) and elsewhere in the Gospels. Pray for our enemies and persecutors, for their salvation and conversion to the fullness of Truth. In doing this, we are asking God to bestow the greatest of blessings on them (Mt 5:43-45). Christ’s teachings do not have an expiration date, and “will not pass away” (Mt. 24:25). To a great extent, our fate at the Last Judgment will be determined by whether or not we were merciful to “one of the least of these my brethren” (Mt. 25:31-46).

Page 24 of 31

       Above all else, remain loyal to Christ. “He who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 24:13) [91] When Christ comes again (at a time known to Him, when we do not expect it), He will “save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb. 9:28).

Illustrative quotes:

“So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking a king from him. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.’ But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, ‘No! but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.’ And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Hearken to their voice, and make them a king.’”1 Samuel 8:10-22 (RSV)

“I tell you naught for your comfort,Yea, naught for your desire,Save that the sky grows darker yetAnd the sea rises higher.” [92]G. K. Chesterton, Ballad of the White Horse

“Put not your trust in princes”Psalm 146:3 (RSV)

“And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, ‘To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”Luke 4:5-8 (RSV)

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” [93]Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, 1755

Page 25 of 31

“I’m on the verge of telling my guys to suspend civil liberties and start frisking everybody.” [94]Armando Fontoura, Sheriff of Essex County, NJ, August 2007, in response to a triple murder

“You think freedom means doing what you like. Well, you’re wrong. That isn’t true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you.” [95]Shift the Ape, the Antichrist figure in C. S. Lewis’ The Last Battle

“A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep.” [96]G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 1925

“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” [97]Former President Richard Nixon, in a 1977 TV interview

“… when we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly. … What’s happened in America today is too many people live in areas where there’s no family structure, no community structure, and no work structure. And so there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.” [98]President William J. Clinton, in a 1994 TV interview

“In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but in a spirit of mutual support.” [99]President George W. Bush, greeting to Benedict XVI, April 2008

Publisher:

Lee Penn, “The Sunset of Liberty: Setting the Stage for Tyranny,” Journal of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP), spring 2008, Vol. 31:4-32:1, pp. 24-51.

Footnotes:

Note: Internet citations were done during April 2008. Documents may have moved to different Web pages, or may have been removed from the Web entirely, since then.

[1] For previous SCP articles by Lee Penn on the erosion of liberty, the prospects for all-out war, and the coming of a New World Order, see: “A Time for Sober Reflection,” SCP Newsletter, Fall 2001, Vol. 26:1; “Life in a Changing World,” SCP Newsletter, Summer 2003, Vol. 27:4; “When the State Becomes God,” SCP Journal, Vol. 27:4-28:1, 2004, pp. 24-51, on-line at http://www.scp-inc.org/publications/journals/J2704/; “Soul Under Siege – Part I,” SCP Journal, Vol. 28:2-28:3, 2004, pp. 4-21; “Soul Under Siege – Part II,” SCP Journal, Vol. 28:4-29:1, 2005, pp. 4-21;

Page 26 of 31

part I and part II together are on-line at http://www.leepenn.org/soul_under_siege.doc; “From Liberty to Leviathan: The War on Freedom,” SCP Journal, Vol. 30:2-30:3, 2006, pp. 4-45, on-line at http://www.leepenn.org/liberty_to_leviathan.doc; “The Techno Utopians: Managing the Masses for World Order,” part I, SCP Journal, Vol. 30:4-31:1, 2007, pp. 42-69; and “The Techno Utopians: Managing the Masses for World Order,” part II, SCP Journal, Vol. 31:2-31:3, 2007, pp. 22-39; part I and part II together are on-line at http://www.leepenn.org/techno_utopians_parts_1_and_2.doc. Additionally, Lee Penn and Tal Brooke co-authored “From Home Defense to Totalitarianism,” SCP Newsletter, Winter 2001/2002, Vol. 26:2.[2] A liberal advocacy group defends Obama from the charge that he is taking all military action against Iran “off the table” in Media Matters, “Krauthammer falsely claimed Obama’s Iran policy ‘takes all aggression, all threats, everything serious off the table,’” November 5, 2007, http://mediamatters.org/items/200711050003, viewed 04/15/08. Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, which passed in 2007 and designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist organization.” This bill provides Bush (or his successor) an easy-to-use casus belli for a first strike against Iran (Justin Raimondo, “‘A Heartbeat Away’ From War With Iran and Pakistan,” antiwar.com, January 9, 2008, http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12176, viewed 04/15/08).[3] Los Angeles Times blog, “Babylon and beyond – IRAN: Considering Hillary Clinton’s ‘obliterate’ remarks,” April 24, 2008, includes a transcript and a video of Clinton’s interview with ABC, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-considerin.html, viewed 04/28/08; Boston Globe editorial, “Hillary Strangelove,” April 27, 2008, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/, viewed 04/28/08.[4] CNN, “McCain sings ‘Bomb, bomb Iran,’” April 19, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html, viewed 04/15/08. A video clip of McCain’s impromptu performance, given at a town hall meeting in South Carolina in April 2007, is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg (viewed 04/15/08). McCain was responding to a pro-war questioner who wanted to send Teheran an “air mail message.” [5] Crooks and Liars, “McCain’s century-long problem,” April 3, 2008, http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/03/mccains-century-long-problem/, viewed 04/15/08.[6] C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1946 (1965 reprint), chapter 13, section 5, p. 293.[7] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007.[8] Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007.[9] Wikipedia, “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution, viewed 04/21/08; Wikipedia, “Iraq Resolution,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution, viewed 04/21/08; Wikipedia, “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists, viewed 04/21/08.[10] Derek Leebaert, The Fifty-Year Wound: How America’s Cold War Victory Shapes Our World, Back Bay Books, 2002, pp. 92-93, 610-611; Wikipedia, “Declaration of war by the United States,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States, viewed 04/21/08; Wikipedia, “Kosovo,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo, viewed 04/21/08.[11] Information in this paragraph and the two following is from Wikipedia, “Signing statement (United States),” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement, viewed 05/01/08.[12] Wikipedia, “McCain Detainee Amendment,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment, viewed 04/29/08. [13] The White House, “President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law,” January 28, 2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/print/20080128-10.html, viewed 05/01/08.[14] Wikipedia, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._4986:_National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2008, viewed 05/01/08.[15] Samuel A. Alito, Jr., memo to the Litigation Strategy Working Group on “Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law,” February 5, 1986, http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf, viewed 05/01/08.[16] Walter Dellinger (Assistant Attorney General), “Memorandum For Bernard N. Nussbaum,Counsel To The President,” November 3, 1993, http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm, viewed 05/01/08.

Page 27 of 31

[17] Charlie Savage, “American Bar Association Urges Halt to ‘Signing Statements’,” Boston Globe, August 9, 2006, reprinted at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0809-08.htm, viewed 05/01/08.[18] John W. Dean, Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, Viking, 2007, p. 105.[19] Ibid., p. 102.[20] Wikipedia, “McCain Detainee Amendment,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment, viewed 04/29/08. [21] John W. Dean, Broken Government, Viking, 2007, pp. 102-103.[22] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 32-37, 217.[23] Information in this paragraph is from Wikipedia, “Habeas corpus,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus, viewed 04/19/08.[24] The White House, “President Delivers Commencement Address at the United States Military Academy at West Point,” May 27, 2006, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060527-1.html, viewed 04/26/08.[25] The White House, “Remarks by the President” to the American Legion, August 31, 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040831-7.html, viewed 04/26/08. [26] Information in this paragraph and the five following is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 141-152, 155; Wikipedia, “Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld, viewed 04/29/08; Wikipedia, “Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld, viewed 04/29/08; Wikipedia, “Rasul v. Bush,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush, viewed 04/29/08. (This quotation is from Napolitano, pp. 141-142).[27] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 151.[28] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 169-171.[29] Democracy Now!, “After More than Six Years, Al Jazeera Cameraman Sami al-Haj Released from Guantanamo Bay,” May 2, 2008, http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/2/after_more_than_6_years_al, viewed 05/06/08.[30] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 147.[31] Both quotations in this paragraph are from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 142.[32] People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre, Moscow, 1936, official translation of the trial transcript, http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html, viewed 04/28/08; Moscow trials transcript, the case of Bukharin, “Last Plea – Evening Session, March 12,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1938/trial/3.htm, viewed 04/28/08.[33] Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power, Penguin, 2005, pp. 11-12.[34] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Crest, 1962, p. 272.[35] Information in this paragraph and the following five is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 149, 151, 153-164; Wikipedia, “McCain Detainee Amendment,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment, viewed 04/29/08; Wikipedia, “FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_34-52_Intelligence_Interrogation, viewed 04/29/08; Wikipedia, “Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi, viewed 04/29/08; Wikipedia, “Strappado,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strappado, viewed 04/29/08.[36] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 160.[37] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 156-157.[38] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 154.[39] Wikipedia, “McCain Detainee Amendment,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment, viewed 04/29/08. [40] Jan Crawford Greenburg, Howard L. Rosenburg, Ariane de Vogue, “Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation,’” ABC News, April 9, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256, viewed 05/06/08.[41] Jan Crawford Greenburg, Howard L. Rosenburg, Ariane de Vogue, “Bush Aware of Advisers’ Interrogation Talks,” ABC News, April 11, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175, viewed 05/06/08.

Page 28 of 31

[42] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 74-76; The White House, “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,” May 9, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html, viewed 04/24/08. [43] The White House, “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,” “Purpose,” May 9, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html, viewed 04/24/08.[44] Ibid., “Definitions,” section 2-e.[45] Ibid., “Definitions,” section 2-d.[46] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 76-77; Wikipedia, “Insurrection Act,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Amendments_of_2006, viewed 04/24/08.[47] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 15-16; Wikipedia, “Writ of assistance,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance, viewed 04/19/08.[48] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 16-18, 67-68; Wikipedia, “History of the USA PATRIOT Act,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act, viewed 04/19/08.[49] Information in this paragraph and the following paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 16-18, 68-70, 72-73, 91-97; Wikipedia, “National Security Letter,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter, viewed 04/19/08.[50] Wikipedia, text of USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, section 505-a-3-B, and similar sections elsewhere in the bill, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act/Title_V#Sec._505._Miscellaneous_national_security_authorities., viewed 04/30/08.[51] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 68.[52] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 68-69.[53] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 70-71.[54] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 71.[55] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 71.[56] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 58-59.[57] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 59.[58] Ibid., p. 59.[59] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 59-62; Wikipedia, “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act, viewed 04/21/08.[60] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 87-90.[61] Information in this paragraph is from Wikipedia, “Executive privilege,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege, viewed 04/24/08. [62] Information in this paragraph and the following paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 101-103; Wikipedia, “Hepting v. AT&T,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T, viewed 04/24/08; Electronic Frontier Foundation, “NSA Spying,” http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying, viewed 04/24/08; Wikipedia, “State Secrets Privilege,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege#Origins, viewed 04/24/08; Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Stopping Abuse of the State Secrets Privilege,” April 23, 2008, http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/state-secrets-privilege, viewed 04/24/08; James Oliphant, “Committee passes ‘State Secrets’ bill,” The Swamp (political blog of the Chicago Tribune’s Washington bureau), http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/committee_passes_state_secrets.html, viewed 04/24/08; Klaus Marre, “GOP wants to tack FISA bill onto war supplemental,” The Hill, April 24, 2008, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-wants-to-tack-fisa-bill-onto-war-supplemental-2008-04-24.html, viewed 04/24/08.[63] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 101.[64] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 116-121.[65] Information in this paragraph is from Wikipedia, “Asset forfeiture,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture, viewed 05/06/08; FEAR, “Forfeiture Endangers American Rights,” http://www.fear.org/, viewed 05/06/08.[66] US Department of Justice, “Asset Forfeiture Program,” http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/, viewed 05/06/08.

Page 29 of 31

[67] Information in this paragraph and the one following is from Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 136-139; Wikipedia, “Kelo v. City of New London,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London, viewed 04/26/08. [68] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 21-24, 110.[69] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 30-41, 52-53, 185; Wikipedia, “Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Talen, viewed 04/20/08; WantToKnow.Info, “Granny D’s Day in Court,” http://www.wanttoknow.info/grannyd, viewed 04/20/08.[70] Information in this paragraph and the three following is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 57, 165-174.[71] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 167.[72] Information in this paragraph is from Wikipedia, “Josh Wolf,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf, viewed 04/30/08.[73] James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” The New York Times, December 16, 2005, as reprinted at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm, viewed 04/30/08.[74] Information in this paragraph is from Naomi Wolf, The End of America, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007, p. 128.[75] David Barstow, “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” The New York Times, April 20, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp=&pagewanted=all, viewed 05/06/08.[76] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 13-14, 122-129; Wikipedia, “Richard Reid (shoe bomber),” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29, viewed 04/19/08.[77] Information in this paragraph is from Wikipedia, “2006 transatlantic aircraft plot,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot, viewed 04/25/08.[78] Peggy Noonan, “The View From Gate 14,” The Wall Street Journal online, http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html, viewed 04/25/08.[79] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 125-126; Stacey Garfinkle, “On Parenting” blog, “The Sippy Cup Tale,” Washington Post, June 19, 2007, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2007/06/travel.html, viewed 04/25/08.[80] Information in this paragraph and the one following is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 126-127; Wikipedia, “No-Fly List,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_list, viewed 04/25/08.[81] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 14-15; Wikipedia, “New York City Subway,” viewed 04/19/08.[82] Information in this paragraph is from Wikipedia, “REAL ID Act,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act, viewed 05/06/08; Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Real ID,” http://www.eff.org/issues/real-id, viewed 05/06/08.[83] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 17-19.[84] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 18.[85] Information in this paragraph is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 108-109, 112-113.[86] Information in this paragraph and the one following is from Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 129-135, 180.[87] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 20.[88] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 62.[89] Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep, Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 66-67.[90] Susan Ferrechio, “Pelosi: Bush Impeachment ‘Off The Table,’” New York Times, November 8, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html, viewed 04/18/08.[91] See also Mk. 13:13; Lk. 21:17-19; Lk. 21:36.[92] G. K. Chesterton, The Ballad of the White Horse, http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/white-horse2.html, viewed 04/15/08.[93] Benjamin Franklin, “Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor,” November 11, 1755, as cited in Fred R. Shapiro, ed., The Yale Book of Quotations, Yale University Press, 2006, p. 288.[94] Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura, as quoted in an interview; Anderson Cooper, “360 Degrees,” CNN.com, August 8, 2007, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/08/acd.02.html, viewed 04.30/08.

Page 30 of 31

[95] C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle, chapter 3, “The Ape in its Glory,” in , C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, Harper Collins, 2001 ed., p. 685.[96] G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, Image Books, 1925 (1961 ed.), p. 58.[97] Richard Nixon, in a television interview by David Frost, May 19, 1977, as cited in Fred R. Shapiro, ed., The Yale Book of Quotations, Yale University Press, 2006, p. 555.[98] William J. Clinton, interview on MTV’s “Enough is Enough” forum, April 19, 1994; transcript at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49995, viewed 04/22/08.[99] George W. Bush, statement made during the visit of Benedict XVI to the White House on April 16, 2008; MSNBC, “Pope: Abuse crisis ‘badly handled’ by church,” April 16, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24154651?GT1=43001, viewed 04/22/08.

Page 31 of 31