[ExI] The Total State

Amara Graps amara at amara.com
Fri Jun 20 03:51:48 UTC 2008

>  Amara writes
>>  I found the State of Texas' actions to be a mind-numbing
>>  expression of among the worst of the U.S.' aggressive
>>  against-its-citizens, police-state, government-imposed
>>  purity criteria actions

Lee Corbin:
>Well, every country has its problems (for any given one of us).

Some data. Any of these can be googled for more information.

The Patriot Act, NSA domestic wiretapping, US prison ships,
Extraordinary Rendition (torture by proxy), armed US Federal Air
Marshals on transatlantic flights, the CIA Torture Manual, Capital
Punishment, TSA, Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore, TIA, Secure Flight,
CAPPSII, the AAMVA Project, MATRIX, COINTELPRO, OFAC Scholary Publishing
Censorship, the I-Visa, RFID-laden electronic passports, ChoicePoint,
the Protect America Act (PAA), the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA),
the Real ID Act, the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, the
FBI's Regional Data Exchange, DHS/Federal police access to military spy
satellites, Bush Administration by-passing the the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978,  the Fraudulent Online Identity
Sanctions Act, Guantánamo Bay, The Security and Prosperity Partnership
of North America (SPP), the 2005 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil
Support, the militarization of law enforcement,  the 2006 Military
Commission Act, the No-Fly List, VoIP wiretapping, CALEA, surveillance
against reporters, the DHS Automated Targeting System, and the Defense
Authorization Act of 2007.

The US Federal Government has completely withdrawn from the Human Rights
Council, did not agree to the ban cluster bomb weapons with 111 other
nations, and actively engages in the politicization of science.

In my opinion, the U.S. is not yet Total State version 1.0, instead it
is in version beta, by virtue of one simple observation: a black man who
came from nowhere is now a leading contender for the position of the
President of the United States.

On the other hand, the recent reinstatement of Habeas Corpus [1], which
should also be a good sign, gives me only mixed thoughts.

My advice to readers here is to be aware of what the U.S. Government is
actively doing to you.

Other useful sites and documents:





[1] Reinstatement of Habeas Corpus

Last week the Supreme court overruled the Bush Administration's
suspension of Habeas Corpus for foreign prisoners still held in
Guantanamo Bay. I'm not particularly reassured since the vote was a
razor-thin 5-4 vote.


"But in some ways, the rules for the District Court are clearer this
time. All foreign prisoners still held in Guantanamo have been deemed to
have a right to challenge their imprisonment through a writ of habeas
corpus in this court. Several dozen habeas cases were dismissed after
Congress passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act, as judges concluded
they no longer had jurisdiction to rule on the challenges."


"Still, it's hard to know exactly what the ultimate effect of the
court's enemy combatant decisions is going to be. Among the large
questions left open is whether habeas corpus rights are available to
detainees held outside American jurisdiction."


"What impact will the ruling have on detainees being held in other
American-run prisons overseas?"

"The United States houses terrorism detainees at other prison camps
around the world, such as Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The Bush
administration asserts the right to detain those detainees indefinitely
without giving them any court access. The Supreme Court did not address
what legal framework applies to those detainees. On the legal Web site
Balkinization, Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman suggests that
"the question will in each case be determined by a 'functional approach'
involving multiple factors and, especially, 'practical concerns,' rather
than by any formalist rules." "

JUNE 12, 2008 Rome, Italy

BERLUSCONI: Thank you, yes. We've been told that we'll have two
questions from our U.S. guests and two questions from Italian
journalists. And I would ask the President to just go ahead and start
with the American journalists.

BUSH: Oh, there you are, yes.

Q: Mr. President, also back home, the Supreme Court ruled that
Guantanamo detainees have rights under the Constitution to challenge
their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Doesn't this rebuke of your
policy on detainees validate the criticism that Gitmo has gotten all
over the world, especially here in Europe?

And for the Prime Minister, sir, who do you want to come see you as the
next U.S. President?

BUSH: First of all, it's a Supreme Court decision; we'll abide by the
Court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a
deeply divided Court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented, and
their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national

Congress and the administration worked very carefully on a piece of
legislation that set the appropriate procedures in place as to how to
deal with the detainees.

And we'll study this opinion, and we'll do so with this in mind, to
determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate, so
that we can safely say, or truly say to the American people: We're doing
everything we can to protect you.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list