During World War I, American activist Randolph Bourne had warned, "War is the health of the State."1 His prophecy has proven accurate; the post-1914 years have been an era of total war and the total state. It had seemed that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the state of permanent war, permanent mobilization, and permanent emergency would end. This hope has not been realized. Instead, the US and the world are now laying the groundwork for high-tech totalitarianism; liberty is in retreat, just as occurred almost everywhere between 1914 and 1945. Precedents from the 1790s through World War II Federal power grabs have been a bi-partisan policy, long before the War on Terror. All of these acts have created precedents for what is being done ­ or proposed ­ now. In 1798, the Federal Government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, in response to the threat of war with France.2 "The Sedition Act made it a criminal offense to print or publish false, malicious, or scandalous statements directed against the U.S. government, the president, or Congress; to foster opposition to the lawful acts of Congress; or to aid a foreign power in plotting against the United States."3 About 25 people were arrested under the law, and 10 were imprisoned. The Sedition Act had an 1801 expiration date, and appeared to be designed to impede opposition party political activity and journalism in the 1800 Presidential election. These laws were unpopular, and the reaction to them helped win the 1800 election for Thomas Jefferson. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus for the duration of the war. Thousands were arrested by the military, including anti-war newspaper editors and politicians, and one Chicago man who was briefly jailed for calling Lincoln a "damned fool."4 After the end of the war, government lawyers defended these actions before the Supreme Court, saying that wartime presidential powers "must be without limit," and that the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution ­ almost half of the Bill of Rights ­ were "peace provisions" that should be suspended in wartime.5 The Supreme Court scorned this apology for despotism, holding in the ex parte Milligan decision of 1866 that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."6 World War I established Big Government as a permanent feature of American life; when the US entered the war in 1917, civil liberty went out the window. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 allowed the authorities to jail many pacifists, socialists, and opponents of the war.7 The Committee on Public Information blanketed the country with tales of atrocities by the "Huns," and encouraged Americans to rename hamburgers as "liberty sandwiches," and sauerkraut as "liberty cabbage." Many World War I Federal agencies for control of the economy, including the War Finance Administration, provided the precedents for the bureaucracies of the New Deal.8 Millions of Americans were conscripted, and millions more had to file income tax returns with the IRS for the first time.9 After the war, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer rounded up and deported 6,000 aliens who were suspected as leftists; in the following "Red Scare," "five members of the New York State Assembly were disqualified, and a Congressman was twice thrown out of the House."10 Thus, World War I was a dress rehearsal for what the government would do in World War II, the Cold War, and the War on Terror. During World War II, the US sent 110,000 Japanese-ancestry residents into internment camps for the duration of the war. Of the detainees, two-thirds were American citizens.11 In the 1944 decision Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court deferred to the Roosevelt Administration, and approved of treating US citizens as prisoners of war. The US government apologized for the internment, and offered compensation to the survivors in the late 1980s. Erosion of liberty during the "peacetime" 1990s Even between the fall of the Soviet Union and the start of the War on Terror, both parties collaborated in enacting a stream of programs and laws that invade privacy. In 1994, Congress and the White House were still under Democratic control. At the request of the FBI, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, extending the obligations of telecommunications companies to assist police in electronic surveillance.12 At the time, such wiretaps required court approval; with the 2001 PATRIOT Act, wiretaps can sometimes be placed without court orders. In August of that same year, Attorney General Janet Reno established a task force, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) group to investigate anti-abortion violence and civil disobedience. VAAPCON included representatives from the FBI, the US Postal Inspection Service, the US Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ­ the thugs who carried out the killings at Ruby Ridge and at Waco. By 2000, it was clear that the VAAPCON task force was investigating many pro-life groups and individuals who had no connection to any crimes against abortionists. Documents released under pressure of lawsuits showed that the FBI had assembled dossiers on Cardinal O'Connor of New York, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Feminists for Life, Concerned Women for America, the American Life League, the Christian Coalition, and other law-abiding pro-lifers. Some FBI agents objected on legal and ethical grounds against this surveillance, but their objections were overruled by the upper levels of the Justice Department.13 Attorney General John Ashcroft is keeping the VAAPCON task force in existence.14 In 1996, President Clinton approved the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which made it more difficult for criminal defendants to use the writ of habeas corpus to appeal their convictions.15 The same year, the Republican-majority Congress passed (and President Clinton signed) the "Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Of 1996."16 This law required all states to establish a registry of new staff hired by any employer, and to share the employee's name, earnings, address, and Social Security number with the Federal government. The database, the "National Directory of New Hires," is to be used in conjunction with the Federal "Parent Locator Service" to enforce child support orders. The government now can track who hires whom, and when. The Bush administration proposes extending the reach of this database, requiring casinos and racetracks to immediately report gamblers' winnings over $5,000.17 As with the new hire database, the reason given for the plan is to enforce collection of delinquent child-support payments. Also in 1996, Congress passed a law enacting a de facto national ID card ­ a provision for "State-Issued Drivers Licenses and Comparable Identification Documents," hidden on page 716 of a 749-page Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. However, the stealth law was repealed in 1999, after opponents of a national ID card publicized it.18 Despite the flood of anti-privacy measures passed since 9/11, no laws have been passed to implement a national ID card. 1998, both parties cooperated to authorize "roving wiretaps," allowing a single wiretap warrant to cover all telephones used by a suspect, in the jurisdiction covered by the warrant. Thus, if a Federal suspect visits a friend or relative, and makes a call from their residence, their phones can be tapped under the same warrant. After 9/11, this power was extended; a "roving wiretap" warrant can cover the entire nation.19 In the late 1990s, it was revealed that the intelligence agencies of the US, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have maintained the ECHELON espionage system since 1971. In its current form, "it is capable of intercepting and processing many types of transmissions, throughout the globe. In fact, it has been suggested that ECHELON may intercept as many as three billion communications every day, including phone calls, e-mail messages, Internet downloads, satellite transmissions, and so on. The ECHELON system gathers all of these transmissions indiscriminately, then distills the information that is most heavily desired through artificial intelligence programs. Some sources have claimed that ECHELON sifts through an estimated 90 percent of all traffic that flows through the Internet. ... The original purpose of ECHELON was to protect national security. That purpose continues today. For example, we know that ECHELON is gathering information on North Korea. ... However, national security is not Echelon's only concern. Reports have indicated that industrial espionage has become a part of Echelon's activities. While present information seems to suggest that only high-ranking government officials have direct control over ECHELON's tasks, the information that is gained may be passed along at the discretion of these very same officials. As a result, much of this information has been given to American companies, in apparent attempts to give these companies an edge over their less knowledgeable counterparts. ... In addition, there are concerns that Echelon's actions may be used to stifle political dissent. Many of these concerns were voiced in a report commissioned by the European Parliament. What is more, there are no known safeguards to prevent such abuses of power. ... ECHELON is a highly classified operation, which is conducted with little or no oversight by national parliaments or courts. Most of what is known comes from whistleblowers and classified documents. The simple truth is that there is no way to know precisely what ECHELON is being used for. But there is evidence, much of which is circumstantial, that ECHELON (along with its British counterpart) has been engaged in significant invasions of privacy. These alleged violations include secret surveillance of political organizations, such as Amnesty International. ... What is even more disquieting is that, if these allegations are proven to be true, the NSA and its compatriot organizations may have circumvented countless laws in numerous countries. Many nations have laws in place to prevent such invasions of privacy. However, there are suspicions that ECHELON has engaged in subterfuge to avoid these legal restrictions. For example, it is rumored that nations would not use their own agents to spy on their own citizens, but assign the task to agents from other countries."20 ECHELON remains in operation, as far as can be known. In December 1998, Federal bank regulators proposed a "know your customer" regulation that would have required banks to establish profiles on their customers, and to make reports on request (without a warrant) within 48 hours to law enforcement officials. These plans were set aside in 1999 after more that 250,000 people sent in comments opposing the proposed rule. However, this proposal ­ and more ­ was adopted after 9/11.21 Locking America down after 9/11 Immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Federal government aggressively sought new powers to carry on the new, open-ended war. In her April 2004 testimony to the Congressional 9/11 commission, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that the attacks made possible "bold and comprehensive changes" for America: "Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events. Events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting. And just as World War II led to a fundamental reorganization of our national defense structure and the creation of the National Security Council, so has Sept. 11 made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our homeland. President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, established a new center to integrate and analyze threat information, terrorist threat information, directed the transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror, broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers that prevent the sharing of vital information between our domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence agencies, and working with Congress given officials new tools, such as the Patriot Act, to find and stop terrorists."22 The drive for power is bipartisan. In September 2001, House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt said, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. ... We're not going to have the openness and freedom we have had."23 The authorities have made the most of the opportunities presented to them by the disaster. Within six days of the September attacks, Attorney General Ashcroft was circulating early drafts of the law that would become the PATRIOT Act. One of his proposals was a provision for suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.24 This writ, which originated with the British Magna Carta of 1215, requires the government to bring prisoners before a judge, so that a court may decide whether there is sufficient legal reason to keep them in jail. Without this writ, the authorities would be able to lock people up at will, indefinitely. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, made it clear that this proposal could not be included in the new law. As a result, the idea of suspending habeas corpus disappeared from the PATRIOT Act. The Administration has proposed a system of military tribunals to judge the cases of prisoners ­ whether American or foreign ­ held as "enemy combatants." These tribunals could impose the death penalty, without any review of the case by a civilian judge regarding the penalty, the verdict, or the grounds for holding the prisoner as an enemy combatant.25 Under proposed Justice Department rules, tribunals may block defendants and their attorneys from seeing information ­ whether classified or not ­ that prosecutors say should be protected for national security reasons. Attorney-client conversations may be monitored, and attorneys for enemy combatants would be required ­ regardless of attorney-client privilege ­ to divulge information for national security reasons. Defense lawyers will not be allowed to hire outside experts, and prisoners have no right of appeal to civilian courts. As a capstone to this new form of the lettre de cachet,26 the government asserts the right to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely, even if they are acquitted by the military tribunals. Attorney General Ashcroft has said, "the last time I looked at September 11, an American street was a war zone."27 If this is so, then battlefield rules may apply when the government wishes to deal with any domestic opponents. The PATRIOT Act The Federal attack on the Bill of Rights got a jump start with the PATRIOT Act, which was rushed into law less than two months after the September 11, 2000 terrorism. The bill passed with minimum debate,28 and with massive bipartisan support. The vote was 356 to 66 in the House, and there was only one negative vote in the Senate (Sen. Russell Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin).29 The current Democratic front-runner for the Presidency, Sen. John Kerry, voted for the PATRIOT Act. Provisions of the act include the following items, all of which are aimed directly at the Bill of Rights as we have known it: "Domestic terrorism" gets a broad definition: any "acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State, and appear to be intended to (1) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (3) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." The ACLU has noted that Operation Rescue and anti-globalization protestors could be defined as domestic terrorists under these provisions;30 so could large-scale union picketing or massive, traffic-blocking antiwar protests. ("Intimidation" is a broad term; Transportation Security Agency agents have arrested would-be passengers who talk back to them, saying that "raising your voice to a screener" is "intimidation.")31 Anyone who supports a group labeled as "domestic terrorist" may himself be investigated ­ even if he merely gives financial assistance, and is not aware of the full range of the group's activities.32 Justice Department guidelines issued in 2002 give agents wide power to start an anti-terror investigation, for almost any reason: "the 'reasonable indication' standard for commencing a terrorism enterprise investigation ... [is] substantially lower than 'probable cause' ... The nature of the conduct engaged by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal intelligence investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts."33 Under a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (established during the Carter Administration in 1978), the FBI can visit libraries and bookstores to obtain lists of books that suspects buy or borrow. The stores and libraries are prohibited from informing the suspect that they have given information on him to the government.34 Agents may now search a suspect's home, with a warrant, but without immediately notifying the person of the search. This is a return to the "black bag jobs" that occurred under J. Edgar Hoover; it applies to all investigations, not just those related to terrorism.35 The law now allows Federal agents to use the Carnivore wiretapping system. Carnivore, also known as DCS1000, is a device that the government can use to monitor all e-mail traffic that passes through an Internet service provider. The device can scan e-mail for suspicious content;36 today, this may be a reference to "bomb" or "Allah;" under a new administration, the system could catch anyone who uses "pro-life" or "evangelical" or "un-Constitutional" in e-mail. The gover nment can use Carnivore without showing probable cause that a crime has been committed, or is about to be committed.37 When the PATRIOT Act was rushed through Congress, the reason given was the need to combat terrorism. However, the government has used its new powers to pursue offenses of all kinds: "suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders. ... A study in January by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that while the number of terrorism investigations at the Justice Department soared after the Sept. 11 attacks, 75 percent of the convictions that the department classified as 'international terrorism' were wrongly labeled. Many dealt with more common crimes like document forgery."38 FBI investigations can be started for even less reason. In 2003, some bystanders were alarmed to see a young, dark, bearded man reading an anti-government article at a coffee shop in Atlanta; they called the FBI with a tip. The target: a bookstore staffer who earned a visit by 2 FBI agents in his shop, plus a search of his car, for the crime of being seen reading an article that his father had passed on to him: "Hal Crowther's 'Weapons of Mass Stupidity' from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa."39 The article was a "scathing screed focusing on the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch ­ really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11."40 When questioned about the incident, FBI spokesman Special Agent Parris said, "'In this post-911 era, it is the absolute responsibility of the FBI to follow through on any tips of potential terrorist activity,' Parris says, 'Are people going to take exception and be inconvenienced by this at times? Oh, yeah. ... A certain amount of convenience is going to be offset by an increase in security.'"41 Schultz's own comment is apt: "I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees."42 Some provisions of the PATRIOT Act are permanent; others are scheduled to expire in December 2005 unless renewed by Congress.43 Bush and Ashcroft, however, are already urging Congress not to restrict their power.44 As the Associated Press reported in April 2004, "Making the USA Patriot Act a theme in his bid to win a second term, President Bush is decrying any proposed weakening of the law he calls central to fighting terrorism."45 Bush said, "To abandon the Patriot Act would deprive law enforcement and intelligence officers of needed tools in the war on terror, and demonstrate willful blindness to a continuing threat."46 Bush appears not to see the contradiction between his own policies and his claim in the 2002 State of the Union address that "No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police. ... America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture ­ but America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law ... limits on the power of the state ... respect for women ... private property ... free speech ... equal justice ... and religious tolerance."47 Perhaps Bush's real beliefs are expressed in the off-hand remarks that he made in December 2000 to Congressional leaders: "there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."48 Beyond the PATRIOT Act The powers granted by the Patriot Act do not suffice for our rulers. Mindy Tucker, a Justice Department spokesman in 2001, said after the law was enacted, "This is just the first step. There will be additional items to come."49 Her prophecy was correct. Federal investigators can now eavesdrop on conversations between lawyers and their clients in prison, without obtaining a prior court order allowing this.50 So much for attorney-client privilege. In March 2004, the FBI proposed to the Federal Communications Commission that all broadband Internet service providers re-wire their networks and re-design their services to allow easy wiretapping by law enforcement agents.51 Companies would have 15 months to comply, and could pass these costs on to their customers. Recent court rulings allow the FBI to install keystroke-logging software on individuals' computers without a warrant. Under the "Magic Lantern" program, they can also send out spyware to targets ­ and the major makers of anti-virus software have agreed to design their anti-viral and firewall programs so as not to interfere with the FBI's virus.52 These provisions apply to any Federal investigation, and are not limited to the hunt for terrorists.53 The Justice Department has granted the FBI the authority to spy on churches, mosques, and public meetings, without any prior specific leads indicating that criminal activity might be occurring.54 Thus, the FBI is returning to the practices of the COINTELPRO program of 1956-1971, when the FBI infiltrated, manipulated, and fostered divisions within civil rights, anti-war, black power, and other dissident organizations.55 Several Senators, including Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), are proposing revival of the draft to wage the current wars.56 In the US, the draft was previously in use during the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and during much of the Cold War (1948-1973). A "Terrorism Awareness Information System" (TIAS, initially named the "Total Information Awareness System") is being designed by the Defense Department, with a $200 million initial appropriation. The program would mine data from existing private and government databases, seeking "suspicious" behavior patterns. The TIAS could examine bank and credit card data, air travel and car rental data, medical records, prescriptions, information about on-line purchases, and any other computerized records. The TIAS will also create a national database of gun owners and gun buyers, despite laws passed in 1986 and 1993 that ban the creation of such a national gun registry.57 Anyone can be targeted for a database search, without a warrant. In addition, TIAS is developing software that will identify individuals who are seen in public by video surveillance cameras.58 In response to a public outcry against TIAS, Congress prohibited further funding in early 2003. However, there is a lethal loophole: if the President certifies that TIAS is necessary for national security, the building of this comprehensive on-line record for every American can proceed.59 By early 2003, there was already a "working prototype of the system, and federal agencies outside the Defense Department have expressed interest in it."60 The Justice Department is seeking Supreme Court approval to hold foreign nationals captured outside the US indefinitely at the Guantánamo Bay camp ­ without according these captives either prisoner of war status or the rights (including judicial review of their confinement) that are given to illegal aliens in the US justice system. Likewise, the Administration seeks the high court's approval for holding two American citizens incommunicado indefinitely in military brigs as "enemy combatants."61 In August 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department plans to detain more Americans as "enemy combatants."62 The Administration demands that the Supreme Court defer to its decision to carry out a de facto suspension of the rights of habeas corpus: "The Court owes the executive branch great deference in matters of national security and military affairs, and deference is particularly warranted in respect to the exceptionally sensitive and important determination [of enemy-combatant status] at issue here."63 Thus, the Administration claims the right to drop anyone into the legal black hole of "enemy combatant" status, without any judicial review of this decision. For those accused of terrorism-related crimes, the government offers a coercive choice: plead guilty and forego a jury trial ­ or face indefinite confinement as an enemy combatant.64 A writer for Newsweek explains the reasoning for this course of action, offered by Vice Admiral Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency: "Why not present him [José Padilla, one of the two Americans held as an enemy combatant] to the court? Admiral Jacoby's rationale is fascinating: first of all, because there might be something the interrogators missed, or can find out if there are new suspects captured somewhere else sometime. And you wouldn't want Padilla to have any sense of hope if they need to question him again: 'Any delay in obtaining information from Padilla could have the severest consequences for national security and public safety.' Secondly--and this is what's really creepy--because Padilla might reveal 'sources and methods.' That is, he might talk about precisely those means that were used to make him talk, therefore he can never be allowed to talk at all. If the courts buy this line of argument, then we Americans can kiss our sweet rights goodbye. And reading the admiral's brief, you have to ask yourself if that isn't really the goal: to give the president and his people the power to treat all Americans like José Padilla, unless and until we give the answers expected of us."65 The precedents that will be set by the Court's decisions on these cases (expected to occur in summer 2004) will govern the rights for anyone who is on the wrong side of an executive order; these decisions do not merely affect foreigners, naturalized citizens, or Muslims. In March 2003, the government announced plans for computerized pre-screening of all air passengers, the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS II). Americans who wish to fly will be run through a government database, and classified as "green" (allowed to fly), "yellow" (subject to intensive search before flying), or "red" (banned from flying, and referred to the police). Those on the black list will not be able to know why they were coded yellow or red, and will not be able to challenge their classification.66 The Bush Administration has requested increased funding in 2005 for this system ­ and American Airlines, JetBlue, and Northwest Airlines have already leaked millions of passenger records to the government to test the system.67 In early 2003, a Justice Department insider leaked a draft of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" (DSEA) ­ also known as "PATRIOT Act II."68 This bill, which had been sent to Vice President Cheney and House Speaker Hastert before the leak, would have greatly increased the power of Federal law enforcement officials. Provisions included authorizing surveillance of Americans suspected of gathering information for a foreign power, even if the activity in question is otherwise legal.69 (Thus, for example, someone who is preparing a report for Amnesty International, a foreign organization, could be targeted; so could someone preparing a report for the Vatican.) Federal agents who illegally spy on Americans would be exempted from prosecution or civil suit, if they were acting in "good faith" on orders from above.70 The "Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information" would simplify secret arrests and detentions.71 The "Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities" provision would overturn most Federal and State court "consent decrees" restricting the rights of police to spy on Americans.72 Use of encryption technology in conjunction with any other crime committed with a computer would result in an additional five-year prison sentence.73 (With this provision, using encrypted e-mail to plan to block an abortion clinic ­ a violation of the 1994 FACE Act ­ would warrant a longer prison term.) Americans could lose their citizenship if accused of supporting domestic or international terrorism; they could then be detained indefinitely as "undocumented immigrants in their own country."74 The bill states, "the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct."75 DSEA would also overturn a court decision that required the Federal government to reveal the names of those it has jailed since 9/11.76 The DSEA has not become law ­ yet ­ but it makes clear what the government would like to do, if it can. It may be that sections of the DSEA may be enacted one by one. For example, in November 2003, Congress passed a bill that allows the FBI more authority to demand records from businesses, without approval from a judge or a grand jury. Previously, banks and other financial institutions were required to provide such data in "terrorism" cases; the new law makes the same requirements of car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, casinos, and other businesses.77 Several Supreme Court justices have said that they will not stand in the way. In March 2003, Justice Antonin Scalia told a gathering at John Carroll University that "most of the rights you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires," because "the Constitution just sets minimums;" during war, "the protections will be ratcheted down to the constitutional minimum."78 Soon after the attack on the World Trade Center, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that Americans are "likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." 79 In 1998, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, in his book All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime, that "In time of war, presidents may act in ways that push their legal authority to its outer limits, if not beyond."80 Three of the nine Justices have telegraphed their intent: when the President says "jump," they will say, "how high?" Torture and hostage-taking As the US carries on its War On Terror, its practices come to resemble those of its erstwhile Communist and present-day Muslim enemies. In its treatment of enemy prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, US forces are using torture tactics that the Soviets perfected during the Moscow Show Trials in the 1930s. Those held at a CIA facility at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan are beaten by military police, forced to stand or kneel for extended periods, thrown against walls, deprived of sleep by 24-hour light, deprived of pain medication for wounds, and otherwise subjected to "stress and duress."81 (The Soviets called this process the "conveyor," and it was effective in making the Old Bolsheviks confess to trumped-up charges during the Great Purge.) One official told the Washington Post, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."82 If this level of torment fails, the US sends prisoners to Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and Syria; there, full-scale torture can occur. As another US official said, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."83 With the exigencies and temptations of war, torture is gaining public supporters from the Left, the Center, and the Right. In the fall of 2001, Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor, defender of O.J. Simpson, and erstwhile defender of civil liberties, proposed allowing judges to issue "torture warrants;" he proposes the same idea to help the Israelis question Palestinian terror suspects.84 Dershowitz acknowledges that evidence gained from torture can't be admitted in the prisoner's criminal trial ­ but it could be used in a civil case against him (such as a deportation hearing, or other civil proceedings that our inventive Justice Department may design), or in a criminal trial of a third party.85 Commentator Jonathan Alter said in November 2001, "In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to ... torture;" he ended by proposing the extradition of stubborn terror suspects to our "less squeamish allies."86 A writer for Atlantic Monthly takes a pragmatic approach: "It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone."87 Pat Buchanan, a traditionalist who usually opposes arbitrary use of government power, nevertheless says, "But if it is moral to go to war and kill thousands to prevent potential acts of terror on U.S. soil, why cannot we inflict pain on one man, if that would stop imminent acts of terror on U.S. soil?"88 The commentators write; the military and the CIA act. An August 2003 Newsweek report states, "Suspected bad guys are isolated and dependent for every bit of information they receive, even the time of day. The interrogators have the power to grant or withhold permission for every bodily function, including sleep. It's amazing how fast most people break down under such circumstances. If that doesn't work, the treatment can get rough. But you have to read between [Vice Admiral] Jacoby's lines to figure that out. Because the enemy in the war on terror is so hard to identify and doesn't fight the kind of war the United States spent trillions of dollars to wage, Jacoby tells us 'innovative and aggressive solutions are required.' A 'robust program' has been put in place during which 'interrogations have been conducted at many locations worldwide by personnel from DIA [the Defense Intelligence Agency] and other organizations in the Intelligence Community.' As one of Jacoby's subordinates in the U.S. Navy explained to me, the idea is to keep most of the important players out of the United States. Apparently there is no shortage of black holes in which to soften up the bad guys, although only a few are publicized. 'The most interesting thing about interrogations is how the U.S. government and military capitalizes on the dubious status (as sovereign states) of Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and aircraft carriers to avoid certain legal questions about rough interrogations,' my friend told me. 'Whatever humanitarian pronouncements a state such as ours may make about torture, states don't perform interrogations, individual people do. What's going to stop an impatient soldier, in a supralegal location, from whacking one nameless, dehumanized shopkeeper among many?'"89 We start with sleep deprivation and go from there; the Soviet interrogators in the 1937 Show Trials would understand and agree. If torture does not suffice, there is also the expedient of taking hostages ­ a practice used to its full extent by the Germans during the two World Wars. According to a July 2003 Washington Post story about the US response to the guerrilla resistance in Iraq, "Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: 'If you want your family released, turn yourself in.' Such tactics are justified, he said, because, 'It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.' They would have been released in due course, he added later. The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered."90 Such is our country's progress since the Carter Administration. In 1980, it was "America Held Hostage" by the Iranians. Now, it's "American-held hostages," with the families of Iraqi suspects taken as expediency demands. The proponents of torture and hostage-taking say that these acts are necessary in wartime ­ especially when dealing with terrorists who might be induced to reveal the location of a ticking bomb. It is the same taboo-smashing, utilitarian logic that liberals in the 1960s and 1970s used to overturn laws limiting abortion. Those who favored legalized abortion said that it was a necessary, tragic way to deal with pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, threats to the health of the mother, and severe deformity of the fetus. Thirty-five years later, there are 1.3 million abortions a year;91 for every 1,000 babies born alive, about 250 are slain in their mother's womb.92 Given the decay of the culture, and the way that taboos fall when they are broken for the "hard cases," I venture a prediction. If we start torturing terror suspects in 2004, then torture will be widespread for "routine" crimes by 2014, and will be on pay-per-view TV (or its future equivalent) by 2024. George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, written in 1948, prophesied current events: "Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years ­ imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations ­ not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."93 Militarizing law enforcement Traditionally, the US has distinguished between domestic law enforcement and military operations. In response to abuses committed by US military forces during Reconstruction, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, prohibiting use of the military to "execute the laws" of the US. In the past, that ruled out use of soldiers to spy upon, search, arrest, or imprison US citizens.94 Even before 9/11, the distinction between police and military operations was eroding. During the Vietnam War, the Army violated the Posse Comitatus law by spying on antiwar activists.95 To carry on the "war on drugs," Congress relaxed limits on use of the military in law enforcement,96 and US soldiers provided logistical support for the Waco siege and massacre of 1993.97 In the mid-1990s, after the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Congress voted to allow use of troops in the US after major terrorist attacks.98 Military powers include Presidential authority to declare martial law under the Insurrection Act after a domestic catastrophe,99 and are embodied in military plans issued in February 1991, under Bush the elder (the Department of Defense "Civil Disturbance Plan," titled "Operation Plan Garden Plot"100) and in 1994, under Clinton.101 Contingency plans for riots at the Republican National Convention in 2000 in Philadelphia included use of a Navy "detainee processing center" in case of mass arrests; current plans envision possible use of the Army 82nd Airborne Division to restore order in a domestic emergency.102 The US military has already made policies for civilian internment. One public document, "Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations," issued in August 2001, describes how the military should handle enemy prisoners of war and civilian internees.103 There are extensive policies set forth for camp layout104 and management,105 and an appendix with rules for use of force for control of prisoners.106 The document is not, in itself, a blueprint for the American Gulag. The manual is designed for use in occupied territory overseas. It specifies that prisoners are to be treated humanely and in accord with international law, and are not to be tortured.107 However, with a stroke of a pen, the authorities could use similar procedures domestically ­ and, given Army practice at the Guantánamo prison camp, it's not clear that internees will be treated humanely or in accord with international law. Another Army document, issued in December 1997, titled "Civilian Inmate Labor Programs," establishes procedures for use of minimum-security Federal prisoners for work on military bases in the US.108 The document, as written, seems benign ­ but it indicates that the military and the Justice Department are working together on assignment and management of American prisoners. If this is what is public, then what other plans remain classified? Since the terrorist strikes in 2001, the Federal government has brought the military into the police station. In February 2004, an Army spy demanded that the University of Texas law school give him a videotape of an academic conference, so that they could track down "three Middle Eastern men" who had made "suspicious remarks" to Army lawyers who were at the conference.109 A recent job advertisement for a counterintelligence officer for Northcom, the new military command for the North American continent, says that the staffer will investigate terrorism and "other major criminal activity, such as drug cartels and large-scale money laundering," offenses usually handled by the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Agency.110 The commander of Northcom, General Ralph Eberhart, says that tradition and precedent should not get in the way of fighting terrorism. According to the Wall Street Journal, "In September 2002, he told a group of National Guardsmen that the military and the National Guard should 'change our radar scopes' to prevent terrorism. It is important to 'not just look out, but we're also going to have to look in,' he said, adding, 'we can't let culture and the way we've always done it stand in the way.'"111 The US military plans to test new "nonlethal" weapons in the Iraq theater, starting this year. Among the weapons is a megaphone, the size of a satellite dish, that can issue recorded warnings in Arabic. Then, if the insurgents fail to disperse, the device will stun them with 145 decibels of noise at 300 yards. That's well above the human pain threshold; the head of the firm that developed the weapon says that it will "produce the equivalent of an instant migraine" and will put people "on their knees."112 If the weapon is aimed at a cave that may hold Islamic guerrillas, there may not be any effect on non-combatants. However, the device is likely to be used in cities, where innocent people ­ including children, the infirm, and the aged ­ will be affected and unable to escape. Such developments might seem to be irrelevant to Americans. After all, it could be that the alternative to the use of this weapon would be use of gunfire. Furthermore, the targets are residents of occupied enemy territory. This sanguine attitude is misguided for several reasons. US police and security personnel now have an array of new, non-lethal weapons at their disposal, including rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, and stun guns (Tasers). All of these were initially developed by and for the military.113 Their use spread to domestic law enforcement later. The same could happen with this new weapon. In addition, the proliferation of non-lethal weapons gives the authorities more flexible, powerful tools to control public protests, strikes, and civil disobedience. Where they are reluctant to use guns, gas, or water cannon, they might feel free to use these new devices. The only limitation on their use against Americans exercising their First Amendment rights will be the self-restraint and good will of government officials ­ qualities that are in short supply, indeed. The Council on Foreign Relations recommended in February, 2004 that the Pentagon should greatly increase their research into, and deployment of, new generations of non-lethal weapons.114 This would include lasers that would immobilize vehicles, and directed-energy weapons that heat the skin of their targets. (Prototypes of this last device, nicknamed the "pain beam," already existed by 2001.)115 With the ongoing militarization of American law enforcement, these devices are likely to be used here. The US Marshal's Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 20 state prison systems already use "stun belts."116 These devices can ­ on command from a guard's remote control ­ give a prisoner a 50,000 volt shock, causing severe pain and loss of control of body functions. Amnesty International is challenging the use of these devices, believing that they can be easily used for torture. In any event, if modern police accept "stun belts", why not also use "pain beams" and any other high-tech horrors that our scientists may devise? State and local officials join the raid on freedom The lust for power is not limited to Federal authorities. State and local officials exhibit the same libido dominandi. * State and local authorities have implemented "zero tolerance" disciplinary policies in public schools that purport to respond to violence, sexual harassment, and drug abuse. However, these policies often lead to suspension or expulsion for trivial incidents. As one journalist notes, "In Madison, Wis., Chris Schmidt, a sixth-grader with a spotless record, faced a year's suspension because he brought a kitchen knife to school for a science project. Asked about the case, Valencia Douglas, an assistant superintendent of schools in Madison, said, 'We can't say, 'You're a good kid, so your mistake doesn't have as much force, or importance behind it'.' And so, an 11-year-old is taken away in handcuffs for drawing a picture of a gun; an 8-year-old faces expulsion for a keychain that contained a cheap nail clipper; a fifth-grader is suspended for drawing the World Trade Center being hit by an airplane ... The stories go on and on."117 "Zero tolerance" got a boost from the Federal "Gun-Free School Act" of 1994, which required school districts to implement zero-tolerance weapons policies or lose Federal funding. * In 2000, Nevada police arrested a man who refused to identify himself to them, even though he had not (yet) been arrested or charged with a crime. In March 2004, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the case; its decision will determine whether a police request for "your papers, please" now is a legally enforceable order.118 * In Maryland, in April 2002, the Governor signed a package of laws that give the state expanded power to wiretap suspects, impose quarantine as a response to epidemics or bio-terror, seize medications as needed to meet an emergency, and other measures that "give the governor wide latitude to curtail personal freedoms and keep governmental activities secret at times when the state is facing a serious threat."119 Before the laws were passed, a legislator explained the logic: "'I realize that this bill basically says you can tap someone's phone for jaywalking, and normally I would say, 'No way,'' said Dana Lee Dembrow (D-Montgomery). 'But after what happened on September 11th, I say screw 'em'."120 Many other states are taking similar measures, some of which are local versions of the PATRIOT Act.121 * In March 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the Catholic Church, must include coverage of artificial contraception in its employee drug benefit ­ notwithstanding the firm Catholic teaching against use of such drugs. The Court justified this by saying that Catholic Charities is not a religious organization, and thus did not qualify for the "conscience clause" exemptions from current state laws about contraceptive coverage for employees.122 Jurisprudence of this kind opens the door to more state government interference with the beliefs and practices of churches. * In 2004, the Republican governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, lobbied the legislature for creation of an electronic tracking system to monitor all who prescribe or use prescription drugs. The objective is to detect physicians who over-prescribe "controlled substances" ­ tranquilizers and pain killers, such as Valium and OxyContin ­ and to detect patients who shop for doctors willing to supply these pills.123 * In 2002, police in Virginia Beach, Virginia installed surveillance cameras linked to police station computers along the city's beach front. The data was to be analyzed with facial recognition software, and checked against a database that would eventually "contain thousands of mugshots of people wanted for felonies and violent misdemeanors, missing persons and runaways, and people on the FBI's terrorist watch list."124 Several citizens bleated their approval. "'If you go to the ocean I don't think you should have an expectation of privacy,' said Fuller [a member of the advisory board that set guidelines for use of the new system]. 'You give up part of your privacy when you venture out into the public domain.' Some tourists walking along the resort strip Wednesday said they think the system is a good idea. 'It's for our protection. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about,' said Bonnie Satterlee, 39, of Johnstown, Penn."125 By the fall of 2003, it had become clear that face recognition software yields few security benefits. Tests at Boston's Logan Airport showed that these systems produce many false-positive results, and require high staffing. In Tampa, Florida, police discontinued use of face recognition software with surveillance cameras. However, Virginia Beach continued using the system, even though the system had failed to match anyone against its on-line file of mug shots.126 * In 2004, the town of Brunswick, Georgia passed a new law to deal with the threat of protests against the G-8 summit meeting, which will be held there this summer. Those who wish to get permits for demonstrations "must put up refundable deposits equal to the city's estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet. ... Brunswick requires groups of six or more to apply for permits at least 20 days before an event. The city's ordinance sets no limit on deposits, and says permits may be denied if a demonstration is likely to congest traffic, impede commerce or endanger the public."127 Other Georgia counties have followed Brunswick's example ­ and the ACLU is suing to block the regulations. For the authorities in Georgia, it seems, the First Amendment has a codicil allowing government to charge fees to those who wish "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." * Under a March 2004 ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Louisiana police may conduct brief searches of homes and offices without search warrants or arrest warrants. "New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new search power, which is effective immediately, will be used judiciously. 'We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search,' Defillo said."128 In the past, conservatives have rallied to "state's rights" as a defense against overbearing Federal rule. However, the record shows that state and local officials can trample upon liberty just as easily as their Federal brethren. Technologies to enable tyrants New technologies extend the potential reach of corporate and government officials who wish to track us and monitor our behavior. Tyrants have always been able to gain obedience, even without high technology; Nero, the Khmer Rouge, and the genocidal soldiers in Rwanda and Sudan have not needed micro-chips and databases to work their will. Nevertheless, emerging technology will simplify the task for those who wish to control us. Applied Digital Systems Inc. and its subsidiary corporation Digital Angel Inc. are currently selling chip implants for pets and people, as well as asset tracking tags for livestock, aircraft, and vehicles. The company claims that 1 million pets in the US and 10 million in Europe wear its chips.129 Applied Digital is marketing the VeriChip, an implantable ID tag the size of a grain of rice, which can be read by scanning instruments that share data with the Global VeriChip Subscriber Registry.130 The firm claims many potential uses for VeriChip: "These opportunities include using VeriChip to control authorized access to government installations and private-sector buildings, nuclear power plants, nation al research laboratories, correctional facilities, and sensitive transportation resources. VeriChip can enhance airport security, airline security, cruise ship security, intelligent transportation and port congestion management. In these markets, VeriChip could function as a stand-alone, tamper-proof personal verification technology or it could operate in conjunction with other security technologies such as standard ID badges and advanced biometric devices (i.e. retina scanners, thumbprint readers or face recognition devices). The Company recently unveiled VeriPass(tm) and VeriTag(tm), which will allow airport and port security personnel to link a VeriChip subscriber to his or her luggage (both during check-in and on the airplane), flight manifest logs and airline or law enforcement software databases. The concept of using VeriChip as a means for secure access could also be extended to include a range of consumer products such as PCs, laptops, cars, cell phones, and even homes and apartments. ... In the financial arena, the company sees enormous, untapped potential for VeriChip as a personal verification technology that could help to curb identity theft and prevent fraudulent access to banking (especially via ATMs) and credit card accounts."131 The company is also marketing VeriChip as a replacement for employee ID cards132 ­ meaning that those who want jobs at companies using this system would have to get a chip implant. Another asset tracking product, VeriTrack, is marketed thus: "VeriTrack is designed to track, monitor and protect all assets within an organization or company, including people. With VeriTrack, a more controlled and productive environment is created in which day to day business activities are handled effectively and efficiently."133 This verbiage illustrates the problem with this technology: it reduces people, who are created in the image of God, to the status of chattel: "assets within an organization or company." Applied Digital also sells the Digital Angel ­ a watch-like wearable monitoring device that transmits data to a Global Positioning System receiver. It can track the location of a wearer within 20 feet, and can monitor the temperature of the wearer's environment, and can detect whether the wearer has fallen. The company is selling it to individuals: "Digital Angel systems are purchased to: help people locate a loved one or pet easily; find out quickly if someone has an emergency situation, has fallen or wandered; assure the well-being of seniors, children -- all family members. ... System purchasers include senior citizens, families on the go for times when apart from loved ones, professional care-givers, emergency care personnel; anybody concerned with the whereabouts and well-being of someone in their care."134 For companies and government agencies, the firm says, "Digital Angel technology is readily adaptable to a tremendous diversity of commercial applications, including; fleet management; vehicle, equipment or product theft reporting and recovery; tracking high-value packages and containers; monitoring parolees; tracking livestock and endangered species; monitoring nuclear waste, monitoring remote water reservoirs ­ and more. ... Personnel safety and security can be improved by equipping those on the move with compact, lightweight monitors that: pinpoint their location, monitor their physical condition, and issue an alert if a problem arises. This technology is invaluable for locating and protecting traveling executives, firefighters, police, EMS personnel ­ anyone whose location and condition needs to be determined quickly."135 However ominous this technology may be for the future, it has not yet swept the planet. Overseas VeriChip distribution sites exist for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Spain, and Uruguay.136 In the US, 12 physicians in 7 states perform implants of the device.137 Company sales for Applied Digital (and its subsidiaries, including Digital Angel) were $95 million in 2003.138 Stock prices for Digital Angel (DOC, traded on the American Exchange) and for Applied Digital (ADSX, recently changed to ADSXD; traded on the NASDAQ Exchange) remain far below their peak levels of 2000. These developments are, no doubt, a disappointment for Applied Digital. When they obtained the patent for the implantable chip in December 1999, the firm said, "We believe the potential global market for this device ­ in all of its applications ­ could exceed $100 billion."139 And in February 2000, Applied Digital had received a "Technology Pioneers" award from the elite World Economic Forum, in honor of "its work in leveraging and advancing technology, thereby 'positively contributing to economic development and social progress.'"140 Such is the elites' view of "social progress": we used to put collars and dog tags onto pets, then we started to "chip" pets and livestock; now, some are making plans to put electronic dog tags into people. All of this shows that powerful interests believe that mankind is merely a smart form of livestock, to be monitored and controlled for the benefit of their rulers. In this context it is cold comfort that neo-conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly hailed the VeriChip in early 2002 as "the wave of the future" which "makes sense to me."141 Televangelist Pat Robertson's 700 Club hosted a TV show at the same time, designed to quell the fears among evangelical Christians that the implantable chip would be the mark of the Beast.142 (At least for now, Robertson is right. The "mark" described in Revelation 13:16-18 involves a compulsory declaration of allegiance to Antichrist, as the condition for being allowed to buy or sell anything. The Biblical warning does not define how people will declare this allegiance; the reference to a mark on the right hand or the forehead may be symbolic or literal. Today's chip implants are voluntary, and the Antichrist is not yet in power ­ so the VeriChip and related devices are not the mark. However, the implants are preparing people to accept a type of control that no free person would have accepted a century ago. If a device reduces the repugnance that people have traditionally felt to such control, it deserves suspicion.) Other new technologies that can simplify the tracking of the population include: * Cell phones now, by FCC regulation, include a device that tracks the location of the caller within a few hundred feet.143 The stated purpose is to find where callers are if they report an emergency by dialing 911. With reduced technology costs and improvements in Global Positioning System (GPS) systems, it may become possible to pinpoint the location of cell phone users within less than 100 feet. *GPS devices in automobiles can give drivers directions as they travel in unfamiliar territory; they also can reveal a driver's location at any time. There were about 100,000 cars equipped with these devices in 2001; some analysts expect that there will be 6 million vehicles equipped with these devices by 2009.144 Private companies are already using these devices to police their customers; Acme Rental Company charged one customer $450 in fines for exceeding the speed limit, based on data from their GPS system and a contractual provision giving them the right to charge $150 per incident for those who exceed the speed limit.145 The customer was nabbed by a chip in his rented car, not by the police. * Cameras with face-recognition software scan vehicles and foot traffic at traffic lights, sports stadiums, shopping centers, and other public locations. 146 They are widely used to catch speeders and those who run red lights. There are more than 11 million surveillance cameras in use in the US.147 * Biometric technology digitally captures individual characteristics (fingerprints, the face, a scan of the hand, handwriting, speech patterns, and images of the iris and retina) as a way to identify people. Increasingly, biometric data are part of private ID systems; some have proposed creating a national ID card that incorporates this as well.148 * Credit cards, debit cards, and shoppers' discount cards can reveal individuals' movements and their buying habits.149 * Data mining techniques ­ use of artificial intelligence to discern patterns of behavior from scanning multiple databases ­ can allow businesses to bombard people with individually targeted SPAM. It can also give government officials a comprehensive picture of what people buy, who they contact, and where they travel. Even before 9/11, such data mining had begun; ChoicePoint, a data profiling company, sold comprehensive electronic dossiers on Americans to 35 Federal agencies.150 * Bar-coding products is becoming obsolete. The next step in product tracking is the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explains: "RFID tags are tiny computer chips connected to miniature antennae that can be affixed to physical objects. In the most commonly touted applications of RFID, the microchip contains an Electronic Product Code (EPC) with sufficient capacity to provide unique identifiers for all items produced worldwide. When an RFID reader emits a radio signal, tags in the vicinity respond by transmitting their stored data to the reader. With passive (battery-less) RFID tags, read-range can vary from less than an inch to 20-30 feet, while active (self-powered) tags can have a much longer read range. Typically, the data is sent to a distributed computing system involved in, perhaps, supply chain management or inventory control."151 The analysts at EFF see these potential abusive uses of RFID tags, unless they are properly regulated: * "Hidden placement of tags. RFID tags can be embedded into/onto objects and documents without the knowledge of the individual who obtains those items. As radio waves travel easily and silently through fabric, plastic, and other materials, it is possible to read RFID tags sewn into clothing or affixed to objects contained in purses, shopping bags, suitcases, and more. * Unique identifiers for all objects worldwide. The Electronic Product Code potentially enables every object on earth to have its own unique ID. The use of unique ID numbers could lead to the creation of a global item registration system in which every physical object is identified and linked to its purchaser or owner at the point of sale or transfer. * Massive data aggregation. RFID deployment requires the creation of massive databases containing unique tag data. These records could be linked with personal identifying data, especially as computer memory and processing capacities expand. * Hidden readers. Tags can be read from a distance, not restricted to line of sight, by readers that can be incorporated invisibly into nearly any environment where human beings or items congregate. RFID readers have already been experimentally embedded into floor tiles, woven into carpeting and floor mats, hidden in doorways, and seamlessly incorporated into retail shelving and counters, making it virtually impossible for a consumer to know when or if he or she was being 'scanned.' * Individual tracking and profiling. If personal identity were linked with unique RFID tag numbers, individuals could be profiled and tracked without their knowledge or consent. For example, a tag embedded in a shoe could serve as a de facto identifier for the person wearing it. Even if item-level information remains generic, identifying items people wear or carry could associate them with, for example, particular events like political rallies."152 Defenders of RFID technology ­ which is already in commercial use, and assisting business in inventory control ­ debunk these fears. But EFF replies, "The developers of RFID technology envision a world where RFID readers form a 'pervasive global network.' It does not take a ubiquitous reader network to track objects or the people associated with them. For example, automobiles traveling up and down Interstate 95 can be tracked without placing RFID readers every few feet. They need only be positioned at the entrance and exit ramps. Similarly, to track an individual's whereabouts in a given town, it is not necessary to position a reader device every ten feet in that town, as long as readers are present at strategic locations such as building entrances. ... Some RFID proponents defend the technology by pointing out that the tags associated with most consumer products will contain only a serial number. However, the number can actually be used as a reference number that corresponds to information contained on one or more Internet-connected databases. This means that the data associated with that number is theoretically unlimited, and can be augmented as new information is collected. For example, when a consumer purchases a product with an EPC-compliant RFID tag, information about the consumer who purchased it could be added to the database automatically. Additional information could be logged in the file as the consumer goes about her business: 'Entered the Atlanta courthouse at 12:32 PM,' 'At Mobil Gas Station at 2:14 PM,' etc. Such data could be accessed by anyone with access to such a database, whether authorized or not. ... The passive RFID tags envisioned for most consumer products do not have their own power, meaning they must be activated and queried by nearby reader devices. Thus, by themselves, passive tags do not have the ability to communicate via satellites. However, the information contained on passive RFID tags could be picked up by ambient reader devices which in turn transmit their presence and location to satellites. Such technology has already been used to track the real-time location of products being shipped on moving vehicles through the North American supply chain. ... RFID developers point to the 'high cost' of RFID tags as a way to assuage consumer fears about the power of such tags. However, as technology improves and prices fall, we predict that more and more consumer products will carry tags and that those tags will become smaller and more sophisticated. We predict that the trend will follow the trends of other technical products like computers and calculators." 153 A writer for InfoWorld magazine, a mainstream trade magazine for information systems executives, says that life in an RFID world could be like this: "You're sitting in the food court at your favorite mall with the family, munching on greasy kung pao chicken from Panda Express, followed by a warm, sweet Cinnabon, when a cordon of mall police surround your table, guns drawn, screaming at you to 'Drop the bun and put your hands up!' Reluctant as you are to give it up, you comply. What went wrong? Your wife is wondering if you've been leading a secret life, but it's nothing so exotic. Rather, the clerk at the Gap forgot to deactivate the RFID (radio frequency identification) tag in the sweater you just bought. When you passed an RFID reader, connected to the Wi-Fi enabled network, it sent a message to the security desk, and as you passed each RFID reader along the way, they tracked you down in the food court."154 * American researchers claim to have used a brain scan ­ functional magnetic resonance imaging ­ in conjunction with psychological testing to identify racism among whites.155 However crude these measures are now, what might they do in 10 or 20 years? What other traits might be captured by brain scan, and with what results for the subjects of these experiments? As one analyst notes, "the introduction of new technologies has lowered the cost of surveillance, and permits practices that might otherwise be ludicrously expensive. As a result, genuinely intrusive practices have become cost effective."156 Because computer power potentially doubles every 18 months, data storage costs decrease, and the cost of data transfer over the Internet is falling, ever-more-invasive technologies will become economically feasible. Anyone can land in a database, and incorrect inferences can be made about his behavior ­ and this false data can follow him indefinitely, with no way for the person to confront his accuser or to clear his name. The Congressional Research Service estimates that a government data-mining system will falsely identify 200 terrorism suspects for every accurate "hit."157 It appears that the executives and experts who design and implement these systems see no problem with use of new technology to invade privacy. In early August 2001, a trade magazine for chief information officers and other senior technology executives ran a story describing the potentially intrusive uses of wireless location-tracking devices.158 It asked the readers, "is wireless location-tracking technology a dangerous threat to our privacy?" ­ and 89% of those who responded on-line said "no."159 In 2003, James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, and the first director of the Human Genome Project) proposed that everyone in Europe and the US should have their genetic data in an international database, saying that it will "make life safer."160 In other words, the experts will not impede invasion of privacy; they do not see the problem with it. Resisting the tide Within the US, there is some resistance developing to the erosion of our freedom. In May 2003, the House rejected an Administration proposal to allow the CIA and the military to review US citizens' personal and business records. In the same year, the Senate blocked funding for the Pentagon's proposed "Total Information Awareness" program, which was intended to collect and analyze a wide range of information about individual Americans ­ including medical, employment, and credit records.161 Dick Armey, a conservative Republican and the House majority leader, eliminated the "TIPS" program from the bill that set up the Department of Homeland Security; this provision would have enlisted postal workers, truckers, delivery men, and others with access to our homes or offices to report on any "suspicious" talk or activity. Attorney General Ashcroft, however, continues to try to resurrect the program.162 At the grassroots level, Bill of Rights defense committees are being organized. This movement, which began in Northampton, Massachusetts in February 2002, has since spread to 130 cities, towns, and counties in 25 states.163 Three states ­ Hawaii, Alaska, and New Mexico ­ have passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act.164 Nevertheless, these activities are presently scattered, rear-guard defenses against a rout of liberty. Where we are heading As political, economic, and religious liberty contract, sexual freedom expands ­ as symbolized by the June 2003 Supreme Court decision overturning sodomy laws. Justin Raimondo, a gay libertarian anti-war writer, explains the coherence of these seemingly contradictory trends: "Let's see: the Supreme Court has determined that the cops can't just barge into my bedroom, catch me in the midst of an infamous act, and drag me and my, uh, partner, off to jail. Whew! What a relief! But they can still barge into my office, arrest me as an infamous 'enemy combatant,' and throw away the key ­ in the name of fighting 'terrorism.' So very pagan: no pleasure is proscribed, but politics can be dangerous. ... Roman slaves had a great deal of what, today, we would call freedom; they were free to fornicate, to indulge in every sort of vice, to bring children into the world without benefit of marriage, all the better to serve the tastes of their masters, which, by the time of the Imperial era, had become quite decadent. ... Speaking of decadence, is it just a coincidence that the same news channel that is the most belligerently pro-war and pro-Bush is the same network that broadcasts the sleaziest entertainment? The War Party is hoping that we're all too preoccupied with living out our personal Satyricons to notice what's happening in the world ­ and on the home front."165 From the traditionalist Right, Malcolm Muggeridge made an analogous observation about modern culture in 1979: "These [are] our three Horsemen of the Apocalypse ­ progress, happiness, death. Under their auspices, the quest for total affluence leads to total deprivation; for total peace, to total war; for total education, to total illiteracy; for total sex, to total sterility; for total freedom, to total servitude."166 With these changes in law and culture, several ominous trends are interacting: * With the multiplication of laws and regulations, almost anyone can be hauled to jail, or have their money or property taken, for any reason. Laws and regulations change (and expand) rapidly, and new theories of jurisprudence extend the reach of the law, to the extent that no one can predictably stay on the right side of the law.167 Not even the IRS can offer consistently correct advice on its own tax rules. * The flood of law is, in part, a commentary on the atrophy of conscience. As the people lose awareness of the Law that is "written on their hearts" (Rom. 2:15), the authorities try to enforce the Ten Commandments with multi-volume penal codes. The multiplication of law is also, in part, the result of our quest for a man-made utopia, free of conflict, risk, and inequality. The resulting legal metastasis is proof of moral failure on the part of the governed and of the governors. * Another reason for the proliferation of law is rapid social, economic, and technical change, an increase in human population, and increased trade and migration across nations. Activities that produced little harm to others on a sparsely settled frontier could, if duplicated in cities or suburbs, create epidemics. New industries can arise in less than a decade, and can implode almost as quickly. Barring a global nuclear war or other planetary disaster, technical change and social "progress" will continue to accelerate. The inevitable result, even for those who respect Western tradition, will be new regulations to manage the barely foreseeable side effects of bio-technology, nanotechnology, globalization, and other "advances." For those who uphold the Christian heritage of liberty, this is a sobering reminder. Some of the legal and regulatory overgrowth represents, not moral failure, but a human attempt in good will to deal with the effects of economic growth and technical change. * All the aforementioned trends mean that laws are changeable, seemingly arbitrary, wide in scope, and disconnected from any traditions that the people may have received from their family, their community, and their religious teachers. We have seen the results already: a decrease in the moral authority of law, and increases in crime. The end of this road is a dystopia in which crime is rampant, and the only restraint is external force ­ known now as "enhanced security." Crime and terrorism are part of the dialectic: the people surrender their rights for safety, the authorities oblige, violence somehow persists, and the screws get tightened even further. Where is all this headed, in the absence of Divine intervention? Toward the deployment of total power in what once was the "Free World," exercised by an alliance of government and corporations, for the control of the population. It will be ­ at least at first, in North America and in Western Europe ­ a soft dictatorship, enforced more by social pressure and economic control than by terror. The coming regime will more closely resemble Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 than 1984. An Internet joke that circulated in early 2004 accurately depicts what life under the New Regime could be like: Operator: "Thank you for calling Domino's Round Table Pizza. May I have your national ID number?" Customer: "Hi, I'd like to place an order." Operator: "I must have your NIDN first, sir." Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998-45-54610." Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302, and your cell number's 266-2566. Your e-mail address is sheehan@home.net. Which location are you calling from, sir?" Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?" Operator: "We're wired into the HSS, sir." Customer: "The HSS, what is that?" Operator: "We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time." Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas." Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir." Customer: "Whaddya mean?" Operator: "Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indicate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice." Customer: "What?!?! What do you recommend, then?" Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it." Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?" Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion." Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then." Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids, and your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99." Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number." Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit." Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here." Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn also." Customer: "Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?" Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward." Customer: "Wait! How do you know I ride a scooter?" Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank yesterday." Customer: "Well I'll be a @#%/$@&?#!" Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a July 3, 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here on September 2 for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge. Oh yes, I see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society? Customer: (Speechless) Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?" Customer: "Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 liters of Coke." Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics. The National Health Plan prohibits this. Thank you for calling Domino's Round Table Pizza!" It should be noted that ­ despite the aforementioned, ongoing threats ­ significant freedoms remain in the US, Western Europe, and the developed nations of the British Commonwealth. Were this not the case, I could neither research nor publish this story; this magazine, if available anywhere, would circulate as hand-typed samizdat. Most people, in most countries and in most ages, have not enjoyed this liberty of publicly criticizing the regime. Such liberty is a blessing, a glorious heritage, a gift of God. Nevertheless, blessings can be lost, temporarily or permanently. The Prodigal Son squandered his inheritance on "loose living" (Luke 15:13); only with repentance was he restored (Luke 15: 21-24). Esau fared worse; he surrendered his birthright for "bread and pottage of lentils" (Gen. 25:31-34), and his loss ­ both of his birthright and his father's blessing ­ was irrevocable (Gen. 27: 35-38). These Biblical precedents illustrate why, and how, we are losing our freedom. In part, the blame rests with a fearful and covetous population. In large measure, over the last 100 years, Americans have traded freedom for security and for government benefits: a "pottage of lentils." This choice, made repeatedly since 1912, has yielded the predictable results: a government far more powerful and intrusive than the British regime that we expelled in the Revolution. To some extent, the people have forged their own fetters. The same has occurred throughout the West. There is another part of the story, as well. Since 1789, utopian anti-Christian ideologies have spread among the intelligentsia and the managerial classes throughout the world. These modern delusions include Jacobinism, socialism, Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, aggressive nationalism, Darwinian beliefs in racial superiority and "the white man's burden," and politicized, violent forms of Islam and Zionism. All of these ideologies are based on lies, and ultimately require use of force to gain and keep power. A world constantly beset by the believers in these delusions is a hostile environment for liberty. The period since 1914 has been an era of global war; two World Wars were immediately followed by the Cold War, and then the present War on Terror. (The believers in the aforementioned utopian ideologies deserve the credit for these wars.) War inevitably increases government power; when peace returns, the liberties that existed prior to the war have never been fully returned to the people. The loss of liberty in the West is a two-fold crime. The elites have taken our liberties by force, fraud, and propaganda, and the people have consented to this seizure. This is an offense against mankind, and is likewise an offense against God, who created us free, in His image. In 1755, Benjamin Franklin set forth the natural consequences: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."168 It remains to be seen whether ours is the case of the Prodigal Son ­ in which case, we may recover our liberty by repentance and obedience to the God Who is the Author and Source of our freedom. May God, in His mercy, preserve us from the fate of Esau! Lee Penn, a convert out of atheistic Marxism, attended Harvard university, was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa in 1974 and graduated cum laude 1976. He moved to California in 1983 to get an MBA and an MPH from UC Berkeley; earned those degrees in 1986 and has worked since in health care information systems and financial analysis. Lee is one of SCP's premier allies and associate writers.