>

HOW THE TERROR WAR TOOK YOUR RIGHTS

This week I'm going to talk about how the terror war took your rights. I am
also going to show that it really wasn't the terror war that took your
rights. You already gave them away to fight the war on drugs. The terror
war merely broadened the giveaway to all citizens. Those of us who have
been fighting the drug war for a number of years warned Americans that this
would happen. We begged America not to go down that road. We said that the
drug war was only the first step. That the next step would be to get all
Americans in the net. America told the anti-prohibitionists that the law
couldn't be used against most Americans because most Americans don't use
drugs. The anti-prohibitionists replied that they are only using the drug
war as a prototype to see what America will stand for, to see how many of
us have forgotten the Constitution and why we have one. It appears that the
anti-prohibitionist were correct.

What rights have Americans been willing to give up to fight drugs? The
first and foremost is the right to be secure in our houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment to
the Constitution. We know that probable cause is no longer a requirement.
Now a days mere suspicion will do. What happens if there is no suspicion
that can be in any way articulated? We have secret informants. We have
informants so secret that they no longer need to be produced in court. The
requirement to produce the informant at trial was a feature of American
justice only thirty years ago. What happened to your right to confront your
accusers? The drug war ate it. But for the government things are much
better than that. No longer is it necessary to produce the informant, in
addition, the authorities no longer need to even give the name of the
informant. The powers that be need only say that the informant was a
reliable source before. How can this fact be proved? Well by current rules
of evidence there is no need. We take the policeman's word. Does this lead
to notional (nonexistent) informants? You better believe it. The police
have a name for this practice and other associated practices. It is called
testilying. If there is no truth how can there be any justice? These same
tactics are now applied to terrorists. Who are the terrorists? Well that is
kind of vague. It could be someone who has a grudge against the government.
Not necessarily a violent grudge just any kind of complaint that might
disturb the smooth functioning of the machinery. Some one who agitated
against the drug war for instance. Harboring the wrong opinion can get you
under suspicion. Once under suspicion all that is needed is the word of an
informant and away you go for twenty or fifty years. Don't believe me?
There are people doing such time for what is called no dope dope
conspiracies. A jail house snitch is recruited by the government and made
to claim that these people were planning to manufacture or import drugs.
Twenty years with no evidence other than that of the snitch who benefits by
reduced time behind bars. The terror laws will widen the net.

Every single usurpation that is being broadened to fight the terror war was
initially used to fight the previous pariahs, the drug users. Every one of
the proposals passed by congress to fight the terror war was first proposed
or passed to fight the drug war. Let us follow the money. The government
does. We have been told for years that to fight the drug barons we needed
to get their money. And to get their money we needed asset forfeiture laws.
Those laws now work like this: if the authorities suspect the money had
something to do with drugs they can take it. What kind of evidence do they
need? Why none at all. A suspicion by an officer of the state is plenty
good enough. Too much cash on hand? You must be a drug dealer. The cash is
now the property of the police. These laws are now re tooled and added to
for the terror war.

Let us take the drug manufacture and paraphernalia laws. Anyone caught with
any number of common household chemicals or items such as iodine or
pressure cookers or cigarette rolling papers could be charged with a drug
manufacturing or intent to use offence. With the new terror law in place a
scowl at the hardware store attendant while buying a utility knife and you
could be charged as a terrorists. Because the government has asked the
shopkeepers of America to be vigilant for suspicious behavior and report it
to the authorities. Just as they did for the drug laws. Since the drug laws
were not objected to why object to the new anti-terror laws? Go along to
get along. I advise you to be on your best behavior all the time because
you are a suspect.

This may come as a surprise but the Constitution does not guarantee
Americans any rights. If it did then the unjust laws passed in the name of
drugs and terror could not stand. The only guarantee of a right is the will
of the people to oppose usurpations.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is
certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had,
or has been powerless to prevent it". - Lysander Spooner

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the
exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." -
Frederick Douglass

Saying of the week:

Drug laws aid the police by making everyone a suspect.

If you want to get your rights back ask a politician:

Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home or
because it finances terrorists abroad?

This weeks Senate Judiciary Committee politician:

Senator Edward Kennedy Voice: 202/224-4543 FAX: 202/224-2417
senator@kennedy.senate.gov

M. L. Simon is an industrial controls designer and independent political
activist.