The Most Revolutionary Act

While the first major aim of Pentagon, FBI and CIA propaganda efforts is to promote a military agenda focused on unprovoked agression and conquest,  a second, equally important, aim is to promote public acceptance of a draconian restriction in civil liberties. The past decade has witnessed a de facto repeal of a substantial portion the Bill of Rights. The specific Constitutional amendments no longer recognized by the US government include amendments four, five and six.

The fourth amendment protects people and their homes, papers and “effects” from being searched or seized without a warrant and probable cause (which means the police must convince a judge a crime has been committed, as well as specifying where they intend to search and what they expect to find). The fifth amendment has three separate but related provisions. The first clause stipulates that people can only be detained for capital (i.e. punishable by the death penalty) offenses by a Grand Jury indictment – the only exception being military personnel during war or civil emergency. The second states the government cannot compel an accused to be a witness against himself. The third forbids the government from detaining people, confiscating their property or killing them without following formal judicial process. The sixth amendment guarantees the accused in all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, the right to be informed of the nature of the accusation and the right to confront witnesses against him.

De Facto Repeal of the Bill of Rights

The Patriot Act and other legislation enacted in response to 9-11 violates most, if not all of the fundamental legal rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Under current law it’s permissible for government agents to enter homes and apartments in the occupant’s absence and confiscate their belongings without a warrant or even informing the occupants they have been there. It is also perfectly legal for the government to read peoples’ mail, listen to their phone conversations and read their emails – all considered to be an unconstitutional search of their “effects.” Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration asserts the right to detain – indefinitely – individuals they claim are a “threat to national security” without charging or bringing them to trial. Moreover the Obama administration has gone even further in asserting the right to assassinate both citizens and non-citizens they view as a “threat to national security,” without benefit of their Constitutional right to prove their innocence in a court of law.

Despite his campaign promises to provide Guatanamo detainees a jury trial in civilian court, Obama has also announced his intention to try several of them via military tribunal, where neither they nor their attorneys will be allowed to see evidence against them that involves a potential breach of “security,” nor question witnesses who are the source of this secret evidence. Obama’s dilemma here is these men couldn’t be convicted in a civilian court, as the vast majority of judges would disallow evidence against them that was obtained under torture. In addition to being illegal under international law, torture also violates the fifth amendment, as it compels people to testify against themselves.

Public Passivity in the Face of Creeping Totalitarianism

Over the past 10 years Americans have lost all these critical constitutional rights with hardly a whimper of protest. The reasons for this leaden passivity while the world’s first modern democratic experiment steadily degenerates into a totalitarian police state are complex and open to debate. In my opinion they relate in large part to a fundamental shift in the way Americans view their relationship to government. This, in turn, stems from the systematic marginalization of the American public from a political process in which corporate control over Congress and the presidency has become near absolute.

Corporate interests exert this control into important ways – first, as the primary funders of election campaigns and second, by their virtual control over the mainstream media – which translates into the ability, which they regularly exercise, to demolish the reputation of any elected representative who tries to enact legislation contrary to their interests.