Big Brother Is watching you

[rollinTHUNDER]

NEWS BRIEF:  "Bush's Big Guns Step Up Propaganda War", by Deborah Orin, National News, 11/2/01.

"WASHINGTON - The Bush White House is launching its own "war room" to try to win the propaganda war against "lies by the Taliban" while America is literally at sleep ... The move comes as Bush launches a personal p.r. blitz at home as well, with speeches next week to Americans on homeland defense and the terror war at a time when some pundits claim the war isn't going all that well. The war room is the latest step in the public-relations side of the terror war ... The concept of a war room in recent U.S. politics was launched by the Clinton White House - a round-the-clock rapid-response operation aimed at domestic political foes and personal scandals."

Adolf Hitler succinctly captured the essence of modern propaganda, when he boldly stated, "Truth is not what is, truth is what people believe it to be". As this feature article so clearly states, the Bush Administration is launching an intense propaganda war and is aiming it both overseas and here at home.  Clearly, if this campaign to bring about the domestic changes needed to allow Antichrist to arise can succeed, an intense propaganda war is needed; however, the major target of such a campaign is the American public.  We must be so panicked as to allow our liberties to be taken away.

The aftermath of the September 11 attacks has already paid huge dividends in realizing this goal.  On October 27, Bush signed an "Anti-terrorism" bill into existence that severely eroded our personal freedoms.  Ironically, this terrible law has been officially dubbed the "Patriot Bill".  President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft asked for dictatorial powers to arrest people whom they consider terrorist, without charges, and for an indefinite period of time.  Further, this law allows Federal and State government operatives to employ a wide range of sophisticated snooping techniques that should be alarming thinking Americans everywhere.  The Russian KGB would have loved to have the powers of sophisticated eavesdropping capabilities that this law gives our authorities.

This law was passed without any further "terrorist" attacks.  However, scare tactics abounded, keeping the propaganda pressure on the American public.  This propaganda pressure of a new terrorist threat is continuing, as is the pressure for new erosions of personal freedom.

The Illuminati wants to achieve as much erosion of personal freedoms as possible using the "Fear of Attack" before they launch the next actual attack.

FEAR OF CONFLICT -- FEAR OF WARS -- FEAR FOR THE SAKE OF FEAR

Let us now review some of these propaganda stories that are keeping the pressure on the American citizen so that he will allow more of his liberties, rights, and Constitutional protections to be eroded.

"Fear of conflict" is the operative theme as we study the nearly daily drumbeat of propaganda.

[angels4u]

I don't mind  either if Big Brother is watching and agree its a sigh of the end times, its for our protection but it can be against us also,the time might come soon that  you face persecution if you are a Christian and of course Big Brother will know who is.

I don't really care but what I do care about is.........

THAT THE LORD IS WATCHING OVER ME    

Love:Angels :lightbulb:

[rollinTHUNDER]

Posted on Mon, Nov. 18, 2002  

Secret Court OKs Broad Wiretap Powers

BY DEBORAH CHARLES

Reuters

WASHINGTON - In a victory for the Bush administration, a secretive appeals court Monday ruled the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under a law adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The ruling was a blow to civil libertarians who say the expanded powers, which allow greater leeway in conducting electronic surveillance and in using information obtained from the wiretaps and searches, jeopardize constitutional rights.

In a 56-page ruling overturning a May opinion by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge appeals court panel said the Patriot Act gave the government the right to expanded powers.

Sweeping anti-terror legislation, called the USA Patriot Act and signed into law in October last year after the hijacked plane attacks, makes it easier for investigators and prosecutors to share information obtained by surveillance and searches.

In the May ruling, the seven judges that comprise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court unanimously told the government it had gone too far in interpreting the law to allow broad information sharing.

The Justice Department appealed, saying the order limited the kind of coordination needed to protect national security.

Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed Monday's ruling and said he was immediately implementing new regulations and working to expedite the surveillance process.

"The court of review's action revolutionizes our ability to investigate terrorists and prosecute terrorist acts," he said. "This decision does allow law enforcement officials to learn from intelligence officials and vice versa."

FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES

Civil liberties groups, which had urged the appeals court -- comprised of three appeals court judges named by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- to uphold the court's order, slammed the ruling.

"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubber-stamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants," said Ann Beeson of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The groups had argued that broader government surveillance powers would violate the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

But the appeals court said the procedures as required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were reasonable.

"We think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close," the judges wrote in their ruling, which was partially declassified and published.

"We, therefore, believe firmly ... that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

Ashcroft said the government would uphold the Constitution. "We have no desire whatever to, in any way, erode or undermine the constitutional liberties here," he said.

The appeal is the first since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court and appeals court were created in 1978 to authorize wiretap requests in foreign intelligence investigations. Under the procedures, all hearings and decisions of the courts are conducted in secret.

The appeal hearing was not public, and only the Justice Department's top appellate lawyer, Theodore Olson, presented arguments.

Although the court allowed "friend of the court" briefs to be filed by civil liberties groups and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, since the Justice Department was the only party the ruling can likely not be appealed.

"This is a major Constitutional decision that will affect every American's privacy rights, yet there is no way anyone but the government can automatically appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court," Beeson said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rollinTHUNDER]

This is only the beginning folks. As I said before in my other threads, the world changed forever on 9-11, or at least until Christ returns I should say. America has just rolled over and gone back to sleep, but this time, she pulled the blanket over her head. Here's the story:

washingtonpost.com

Domestic Spying Pressed

Big-City Police Seek to Ease Limits Imposed After Abuses Decades Ago

By Michael Powell

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, November 29, 2002; Page A01

NEW YORK -- Arguing that this city faces a far more perilous world than once imagined, New York's police commissioner wants to toss aside a decades-old federal court decree governing the limits on police spying and surveillance of its own citizenry.

City officials argue that officers need more elbow room to photograph, tape and infiltrate political and social organizations to uproot terror networks. But civil libertarians warn of a return to the unsavory days of old, when New York's police department acquired a reputation for police "black bag" break-ins and spying on political dissidents.

It's a battle with echoes in other cities. In Chicago, officials have already weakened a court decree limiting police spying. In San Francisco, officials have reversed their own 1997 decision and have now joined an FBI terrorism task force, even though FBI surveillance of mosques and peaceful protests could violate the California constitution.

Taken together, these steps suggest a cultural and legal shift driven by fear of terrorism in cities where a civil libertarian impulse once was widely shared. Nowhere is that more noticeable than here.

"The New York Police Department had no conception of the challenge it would face in protecting the city and its people from international terrorism" when it signed the consent decree, city attorneys argue in a federal legal brief. "Clearly, the public interest in law enforcement's ability to protect it from terrorist violence is the most vital priority."

A federal trial court is expected to begin reviewing the New York case in December.

Civil libertarians argue that the fear of police abuses in a war on terror is neither speculative nor paranoid. In New York, Chicago and San Francisco, police spying and surveillance has a long and ignoble history.

"We are seeing a national phenomenon where, in the name of protecting national security against a new and subtle danger, there is a massive effort to eliminate protections for political protest," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "These safeguards were put in place in the aftermath of a documented history of systematic spying, infiltration and dirty tricks by police agencies and the FBI."

The New York case involves a consent decree signed in 1985, settling a federal class-action lawsuit originally brought by criminal defense lawyers in 1971. The decree prohibits police from photographing and carrying out surveillance of political demonstrations. To infiltrate lawful political and social organizations, police must establish a suspicion of criminal activity and gain the permission of a special three-person authority.

This three-person authority consists of two high-ranking police officials and a civilian appointed by the mayor. Civil libertarians argue this is hardly an onerous burden for law enforcement.

"We're trying to figure out what the police are so upset about," said Paul Chevigny, a law professor at New York University Law School who helped bring the class-action lawsuit 30 years ago. "It doesn't require much of an intrusion. It's hard to imagine what they have in mind."

That argument, say critics of the consent order, can as easily be stood on its head. If the decree is so innocuous, they ask, why keep it on the books? What undercover officer would risk reprimand and attempt to infiltrate a mosque without the approval of his bosses?

Civil libertarians here note that Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly has declined to cite a single specific case in which the consent decree hindered a police investigation. In many cases, the U.S. Patriot Act allows the FBI leeway to carry out the same surveillance without federal court oversight.

Critics note that the decree could intrude on basic police work. After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon last year, routine airport videos helped police quickly identify the terrorists. And seemingly neutral leads provided links to planned terrorist actions.

"The concerns about revoking this decree seems almost irrelevant in light of the terror activity we can imagine might be going on," said Jerome Skolnick, a New York University law professor specializing in criminal law and police procedure. "We're in a different world, where the enemy isn't some civil liberties lawyer. That argument and worry doesn't compute any more."

Nevertheless, there are many who remember abuses: In the 1950s, the New York Police Department's Red Squad compiled voluminous files on political meetings of left-leaning organizations, and passed to Congress and the FBI lists naming people the Red Squad believed were communist sympathizers. This squad's lineal descendant was the NYPD's Bureau of Strategic Services (BOSS), which during the 1960s tracked, photographed and pored through the personal and business affairs of prominent liberals and others.

Then came the Black Panther Party trials in New York of the early 1970s, in which the black radicals stood accused of conspiring to blow up five department stores, a precinct house, the New Haven Railroad and the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx. It turned out that Manhattan District Attorney Frank Hogan had ordered undercover police officers to infiltrate the Black Panthers, to the point that jurors could no longer distinguish between the felonious impulses of the Panthers and the undercover cops. (In one case, a police undercover agent handed the Panthers a map and a rented car, and urged them to carry out an armed robbery.)

The jury acquitted the Panthers in three hours. Weeks later, defense attorneys filed the class-action lawsuit that eventually resulted in the 1985 consent decree.

"There was an awful lot of police entrapment," recalled Chevigny. "Of course, there was also a danger from the Panthers, I won't deny that. Those were different times."

New York's police department now cites the example of Chicago, where a federal court recently agreed to weaken a similar legal decree that constrained the police. That city's history of civil liberties abuses was, in many respects, worse than that of New York. Over the course of two decades, the FBI in Chicago carried out more than 500 "black-bag"{ndash}which is to say illegal -- jobs in Chicago. And police routinely investigated political opponents of the mayor.

"Police went to our fundraisers and recorded license plate numbers," said Harvey Grossman, director of the ACLU's Illinois office. "They kept voluminous files on the NAACP and the League of Women Voters. This is a history we ought not to forget."

In Grossman's view, the decrees serve as a brake on police behavior and help to educate new generations of police officers. "The decrees are seen as therapeutic," he said. "The hope was that you'd eradicate a culture."

Not all cities want to loosen restraints on police surveillance, even after Sept. 11, 2001. In Portland, Ore., the police department drew national attention last year when it refused to participate in FBI interviews of Middle Eastern men living in the United States on student, tourist or work visas. The city attorney said the interviews were too broad and violated state law.

In Denver, police officials recently pledged to destroy secret police-surveillance files kept on 10,000 law-abiding people.

"Of course, our history is different," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of Colorado's ACLU. "We watched the World Trade Center on television; we didn't directly experience it."

The New York Police Department's point man on matters of terror is David Cohen, a former deputy director of operations for the Central Intelligence Agency. Cohen declines interviews and refuses to divulge even his age for what he says are security reasons. In the face of the latest terrorism threats, the police department said that Cohen and his officers must be granted wide leeway.

"The people of this city are entitled to the benefit of his professional judgment," the city argues in a legal brief, "in how the ongoing threat to our nation, our lives, and our property is best addressed."

Norman Siegal, former NYCLU director, recoils at such arguments. To simply leave such judgments in the hands of a top cop, he said, runs against the grain of this congenitally argumentative metropolis.

"New York is a town of big mouths," he said. "If we chill dissent and stop being the city of big mouths, the nation loses something vital, even if it doesn't realize that now."

[Guest okiejack]

First I was suppose to fear the Japs and the Nazis, then it was the North Koreans and then the nukes from Russia. Then I had to learn to be afraid of toxins polluting my environment, then I was suppose to fear the spread of Communism, Then Global warming and meteor impacts Now I have to fear losing my privacy.

No thanks. I got GOD on my side and I have nothing to fear from this physical reality.

[rollinTHUNDER]

No thanks. I got GOD on my side and I have nothing to fear from this physical reality.

Are sure it's not the other way around, and you are on His side??

[Guest okiejack]

Okay your are correct, GOD had the right side first and let me make it my side too.

[Guest MustTrustHim]

Hi,

Reading these messages about "big brother" are very interesting! The night before "9/11" happened I had a dream and this topic really reminds me of it.

Here's the dream:

Everyone was going about buying and selling items as normal. It was a big crowded city with tall buildings. I was with my brother and we were walking down the road past many vendors (along with many, many consumers) I noticed that everything (mostly jewelry) was over priced but everyone thought that the prices were fantastic. Everyone was heading in one basic direction and it was towards a stadium. There were stairs to go up to the stadium that everyone was going up. My brother and I didn't want to go into the stadium and saw an exit sign and went that direction instead. Unfortunately the so-called exit lead right into the stadium. There were a few other people at the stadium who didn't want to be there either. We were running around in a panic trying to find a way out of the stadium but there wasn't a way out. Finally my brother and I sat down and the people that actually WANTED to be there started pouring in (the crowds of people who had been outside buying the over-priced jewelry). They were all excited to be there.

Then I looked out to what the stadium was watching. It was Mount Rushmore. The faces on MT Rushmore where slowly starting to crumble and underneath you could see their skulls.  The second face in from the left was crumbled the most out of the four. Half of the skull underneath could be seen. By this point my brother and I really knew we didn't want to be there. We tried to get up but a huge monster of a guard came and told us we couldn't leave. We were forced to stay. This guard was NOT human. He was at least 7 feet tall and the ugliest thing I've ever seen. When he turned to face MT Rushmore my brother and I jumped up and dashed for a large door at the very top of the stadium. On the left side of the door where two more of these large guards, but somehow they didn't notice us. We went through the open doors and it was all of a sudden light out (until this point it was dark and everything had a red/orange cast). We were walking across a bridge of sorts. We looked around and it was a beautiful lush paradise. On the other side of the bridge was a "retirement" community of sorts. It's were people went to retire.

It was someplace we really wanted to go. But there was a nurse standing at the end of the bridge who wouldn't let us pass. She was very friendly and had a white outfit on. But she said we couldn't pass. We had to go back. We could go to the retirement someday, but we weren't ready to "retire" yet.  Then I woke up.

Anyway, I later found out the second face from the left is Thomas Jefferson and he had a lot to do with our freedom. I see this dream as our freedoms crumbling.

I do agree that we are going to see our freedoms disappearing right before our eyes. But that people will cheer it on! Except for those who know what no freedom means - no freedom of religion.

God bless,

MustTrustHim