The Royal Guard
Jan 22nd, 2006 at 9:37 am by Susie
What BushCo wants, according to the fine print (Sec. 605) of the new PATRIOT Act, is a permanent Praetorian Guard, or Cheka, or Gestapo. It’s all too easy to come up with apt historical analogies–but not with any from this nation’s history.
“A permanent police force, to be known as the ‘United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,’” empowered to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence” (what is “an offense against the United States?), “or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony” (what are “reasonable grounds”?).
I’m not making this up. See the text and URL below.
What will it take to get the press to notice this?
Clearly, George is tired of seeing all those plainclothes suited men guarding him.
The help is supposed to wear uniforms, goddamn it.
.
Nothing will make the “press” notice this. They are running a distraction operation.
I just took a peek at the Sunday shows. Trotting out Pat Buchanan, Roberts of Kansas and Lieberman of Connecticut is not about reporting the news. It’s about distraction disguised as coverage.
Their discussions only appear to be about current events. Actually they are digressions, with only tangential connection with anything of significance. In fact, it is taboo to discuss anything that matters in a serious way.
We are kidding ourselves if we think the “press” is going to help us. For now, that is finished. Some day it will be back, but not until there have been real structural changes in how we conduct business in this country.
Good to see Miller get some coverage.
I recomend his books, he has been somewhat ignored by the left ( at least concerning his latest book) and totally shut out by MSM. Mark has been writing about Bush/Co for some time now and it is a shame he has been marginalized at this time because he uses well documented and listed sources when he writes, very articulate and academic.
His latest book “Fooled Again” covers the last election and up’s the ante on that debate, it is a must read if you are concerned about the up and coming election cycle. Mark has also been a tireless activist for election reform and political reform in general.
Ralph…
I agree with you, it is a foregone conclusion to think the MSM press will be addressing the pressing issues of the day in any way that would be a detriment to their corporate bosses and or political minions.
In Miller’s first books he address this fact, and some idea’s of how to correct it. But he has been best at laying out the design and direction of a very conservative type corporate/theocratic movement that has been in the works for some time. Also the fact that as time goes on and the real problems are ignored and new problems are created, our ruling class will have us, ( the general population) meshed in a cycle of war and fear, and the application of fascist modes will become common place. ..(many argue we are already there).
We must continue to speak out, and not be afraid of the truth and not repeat the fear reaction we allowed the media and government to command after 9/11. During the early years of this republic/democracy when someone was to run for a substantial elected government position, he literally had to start a news paper or buy one. Today we reformers have the same option, most notably with the internet… but if we lose that option, that is when the game will change.
I predict that the Times, at least, will not remain silent.
Around next March or April, the New York Times will break this story, a few days before one of their erstwhile reporters would have scooped them by herself breaking it in a book.
Bill Keller will initially downplay the importance of the story, but later the Times will admit, possibly in an unusual Keller-bylined column in which he doesn’t quite apologize for the paper, that they had had it for some vaguely-defined period of time that, still later, turns out to have begun before the elections.
Elections in which the Republicans, having weathered Hurricane Jack (after all, say the papers, it was a bi-partisan scandal) and the NSA domestic spying scandal (in the last analysis, editorial writers solemnly proclaim, all serious people agree that the government should be able to listen in on terrorists outside the US), and without any further scandals that anyone (at the Times was willing to admit that they) knew about, did well enough to retain a bare majority.
Which they naturally will spin as an overwhelming mandate: “This is our due.”
With the cooperation of the Times.
On Page One.
For days and days and days.
Some time thereafter the book will force the paper to release the story. Which two events, Keller will write, have no connection whatsoever.
Some time still later, it will come to be known, maybe in the Times, maybe not, that the President prevailed upon the Times management to hold the story. National security. After a year or more, the Times heroically will have decided that since the story turned on the existence of the published text of a public law, national security should not prevent their writing about it. Respectfully, of course, and carefully presenting what anonymous sources at the paper will refer to as “both sides.”
(The two sides hold the viewpoints, respectively, that the SS Uniformed Division are extraordinarily handsome in their uniforms and everyone loves them, and that, while perhaps it is true that everyone loves them, and certainly they are extraordinarily handsome in their uniforms, the law itself has some disturbing implications, which the Times does not feel itself called upon to spell out.)
In an entirely unrelated pair of editorials — unrelated not only to the story of Keller delaying publication of the Patriot Act story but to each other — the Times will deplore the use of anonymous sources and mourn the loss of several colleagues who have essentially vanished, not only from the pages of the paper but from their homes.
And the Times will pat itself on the back for breaking the story.
And the Post will pat the Times on the back too.
Kind regards,
Dog, etc.
searching for home
The day is coming when dissent of any kind will be an “offense” against the United States.
I agree that it is crucially important to maintain our discourse and to make dissenting opinions available to the public through this medium. One only has to consider the importance of samizdat literature in the old Soviet Union to realize that we cannot stop this service in the forseeable future.
At the same time, I am increasingly pessimistic that we have the ability to change things much by means of said discourse. Again, the comparison with samizdat is apt. Until Gorbachev came along and revised the actual workings of the political system, nothing much could change out in the real world.
Didn’t the United State Secret Service Uniformed Division play a role in FAHRENHEIT 9/11? I seem to recall Michael Moore chatting with them outside the Saudi embassy.
I fear this is a bit of an overreaction.
Any police officer has the right to arrest an offender without a warrant if he or she witnesses the offense or has probable cause.
A cop who catches a drunk driver does not need a warrant to run him in. A cop called to the local 7-11 after a robbery can arrest the suspected perp without a warrant when a witness says, “That’s him! There he goes!”
There’s really nothing unusual in this language. See, for example,
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5770000039.HTM
What’s scary is the creation of yet another police force, and one dedicated to the President. Remember that the Secret Service has two missions: fighting counterfeiters and protecting the President and other elected officials. This could, in my view, lead to a police force willing to answer only to the President.
Washington already has the Capital police, who are charged with patrolling federal buildings. Now Mr. Bush wants a portable uniformed police force he can carry with him wherever he goes, exempt from local control.
You can find information about what is an “offense against the United States” here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=318&invol=101
On more point. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that these people have no intention of relinquishing power. Up till now our objections have amounted to little more than the buzzing of gnats around Karl Rove’s head. Just a few minor annoyances. Rove and Cheney have responded according to the circumstances.
I suspect they are prepared to do much, much more as necessary. I hope I am wrong about this, just as I have been hoping to be wrong for several years now about the degree of ruthlessness of the Republican clique. To date, such hopes have not been realized.
Well, there is always a downturned economy to oust them and that may not be far off. But I agree, these people have no fear, they know that there is little if any mainstream opposition. There is a small group of senators/house reps desperatly holding meetings and trying to apply law, but are totally ignored, except a few showings at C-SPAN, which is better then nothing. I did sense though at one point just after Katrina and and during the pitch of the V.Plame outing…there was some marked nervousness within the Bush camp. Got to keep digging and tossing it up, it will start to stick in a way that they can not shake it. I am waiting to see if the media has any self presevation and starts to talk some common sense.
Great. The SS.
The more scandals and controversies that hit Bushco, the more the MSM gets distracted.
Katrina distracted everyone from Cindy Sheehan (remember her?), who was beginning to get traction. Then Plame/Libby/Rove/Fitzpatrick distracted everyone from Katrina. Now Abramoff is distracting everyone from Plamegate. (Woodward seems to have escaped unscathed.)
And somewhere along the way, revelations of DeLay and then Frist’s, and then Duke Cunningham’s corruption served as distractions from something else, and were in turn back-burnered by yet other distractions. Nothing seems to get traction because all of the distraction.
Didn’t Andy Warhol say that “in the future, every political scandal, controversy, and crisis will be famous for 15 minutes”?
I believe Warhol said everyone in the future will have 15 minutes of fame. I have never been real sure what he ment, but I am sure it had to do with our fast paced society, or maybe our short attention span as a culture.
Yep, Ben, that’s what Warhol actually said — I was just doing a trope.
Well…that’s kind of how I took it, but with the internet and all the young ones, you know what uncle Art said: kids say the darnedest things…
But the real question is: Can we handle the constant up keep of all the scandal, or is it just to much? And , do we not handle it because we can’t really effectivly resolve so much of it because of the politics and an onerous legal system. In any case , I hope Cindy Sheehan continues with her efforts, and I assume Fitzpatrick is fulfilling his duties as a prosecutor.
And at the end of the day, only the thinking masses will ever have half of a shot knowing what in the hell is going on.
Ralph said:
[Begin quoted portion]
On more point. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that these people have no intention of relinquishing power. Up till now our objections have amounted to little more than the buzzing of gnats around Karl Rove’s head. Just a few minor annoyances. Rove and Cheney have responded according to the circumstances.
[end quoted portion]
I have had similar thoughts. But for fear of seeming alarmist, I haven’t spoken them.
But it can happen here. I can envision them refusing to leave power “for our own good.”
They are scary.
Patriot Act Includes Creation of a Federal Police Force…
Thanks to Suburban Guerilla, Mark Crispin Miller and Save the USA for pointing out Section 605 of the House version of the Patriot Act renewal legislation. It calls for the creation of a Federal Police Force. Your imperial presidency……
“…if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felonyâ€? (what are “reasonable groundsâ€??).”
This is more of their attempt to subverse the “probable cause” language of the fourth amendment to defend the illegal domestic spying, I believe. I’d watch out for this.
From Atrios:
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable –
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says –
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard –
GEN. HAYDEN: — unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “we reasonably believe”; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, “we have probable cause.”