terrorism

• 

  Spending More to be Less Secure

  04 Mar 2012 by Jessica Hughes / 8 Comments

  When something goes wrong, we often react emotionally in the immediate aftermath. At some point however, we regain our composure and look at the incident critically, asking, “What could I have done differently to achieve a better outcome?” 9/11 is over a decade behind us so while the tragedy will always carry a heavy emotional burden we should be well prepared to take that critical look…

  Continue Reading

• 

  Sheep or Terrorist – Which are You?

  01 Dec 2010 by Jessica Hughes / 1 Comment

  There has been a huge uproar (again) about Wikileaks releasing another couple hundred thousand secret cables to the public and I have to say I am not at all impressed. Last time the big reveal involved some genuinely shocking footage of the killing of two members of the Reuters News Service by U.S. Apache gunners; an event covered up and misrepresented by military officials. It was not the best face we have seen of our generally honorable young soldiers and it brought home the realities of war in a way uncomfortable for many.

  In contrast, the latest leak seems to reveal that our diplomats are asked to spy as if that surprises anyone, and Gadaffi has a sexy blonde on his arm everywhere he goes. Also that Saudi Arabia is the number one sponsor of terrorism but they are also the ones telling us to bomb Iran. Really pretty disappointing if you were waiting to hear about how the Illuminati run the world. A lot is being made of how this lowers our standing in the world and it is true that we look like snarky rubes. We have been left in the position of Harriet the Spy, who gathers her criticisms and sneering remarks on her peers into a notebook. When the notebook is discovered and those peers read what she has said of them in her most unguarded moments, well, it’s pretty ugly. But how much of what was leaked actually puts people in danger and how is that determined?

  So far I have not heard of anything like troop movements or secret weapons details being in these cables. I would think that if such things were present they would be at the top of the news wire; and while I don’t condone stealing or profiting from theft, I do want to point out that Julian Assange offered to allow the State Department to ‘scrub’ the cables of information that would endanger lives. The offer was refused so it almost seems the State Department has little to no regard for the lives they say are now at risk.  If it was treasonous for the leak to release the documents, how much more treasonous is it for our government officials to refuse to remove the information that only they can be certain is dangerous? Maybe Mike Huckabee, who has called for execution of the leak should also call for execution of Hilary Clinton and Howard Koh and their cohorts who abdicated the duty of protecting innocents placed in danger by the release, even though the opportunity to do so was offered.

  Calling for someone’s execution because he, in Huckabee’s own words, “has put lives at risk,” seems to me a fairly low standard for killing citizens especially when the lives could have been saved from this risk by the simple cooperation of Obama’s State Department.   If we desire small government, if we treasure our liberty we must be cautious of making such harsh declarations or condoning them in our leaders.

  Coincidentally, while Governor Huckabee is justifying execution for putting lives at risk, the ladies of “The View” are calling those who planned to opt of the naked scanners, “Terrorists.”  Why?  They are putting lives at risk by tying up security.  Even conservative darling Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the show’s token Republican, gets in on the action, condemning the move to protest these obscene and worthless invasions of our person.  Should they too be executed?  Why not?  I don’t equate one (releasing secret files) with the other (objecting to security scanning) but it isn’t important what I think, what is important is what the powers that be think; maybe not today, but what about in a decade?

  It is not about defending what Assange did, it is about not letting ourselves be manipulated into supporting yet another sacrifice of liberty because next time it may not be the sleazy founder of Wikileaks or some Private First Class, it may be you.  The Department of Homeland Security has already labeled anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Obama-bot a “Domestic Terrorist,” and the administration is fighting against the ACLU in Federal Court; defending its stated right to assassinate even U.S. Citizens, anywhere in the world, if they feel the citizen poses a threat to the U.S.  Surely hell has frozen over when I find myself on the side of the ACLU!  Not even remotely concerned that this lunatic is in the Executive branch, Senators McCain, Lieberman and Brown last year co-sponsored a bill that would allow the indefinite incarceration of “enemy belligerents” including U.S. Citizens with simply a stroke of an executive pen.  So much for checks and balances!  The legislation gives no clear definition of “enemy belligerent” but one must assume the standards to be one are lower than the previously popularized “enemy combatant.”  How belligerent must one be to be incarcerated with no trial, no charges, no right to even appear before a judge?  This frightens me as it should you.  I feel fairly belligerent quite often these days, and more and more I get the sense that when Washington talks about protecting the U.S. what they really mean is protecting their power.

  Government – all government regardless of party – is, by reason of man’s fallen nature, like a mean dog on a chain.  You cannot expect this dog to leave any slack whatsoever.  It will struggle at the utmost length of this restraint, to go as far as possible so never, never should we expect that power assumed will be put to only the stated purpose of the moment.  Any legislation written or precedent set should be examined with the question, “What is the absolute most heinous lengths this could be taken to justify?”  Then assume it will go even further.  If your worst imaginings are not acceptable then neither is the law or precedent.  Reject it no matter how good it sounds in the present circumstances.

  Suppose I am way wrong.  Suppose every man in government today is an angel with only our best interests at heart.  That does not change for one minute the fact that we are seeing a Hitleresque consolidation of power along with a defaming of those who object to that power.  Our nation has primed itself for absolute tyranny.  As Madison warned:

  In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body… The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

  Let me stress again that I am not defending the actions of Julian Assange or the PFC who may have supplied him the cables; but we are all going to be in a world of hurt if the powers that be manage to convince the masses that there are only two camps remaining: the docile sheep or the terrorists worthy of execution.
  
  

  

  
  

  Continue Reading

• 

  Our Week Versus the Ruling Class

  24 Nov 2010 by Jessica Hughes / 3 Comments

  Today is the busiest travel day of the year and thousands plan to arrive at the airport and opt out of the full body scanners.  My thoughts and prayers will be with these Patriot Protesters because I know it is hard to make decisions that cause inconvenience in pursuit of a principle.  My prayers will also be with those who choose to drive instead of flying, a statistically more dangerous venture to which many have been driven by an out of control police state.  As tensions rise and tempers flare here amid the unwashed masses, nothing is so clear as that the self-anointed American Aristocracy has turned a deaf ear and a blind eye and is merrily showing us the ‘tall finger.’

  First, a recap of some of this week’s highlights:

  Video was released of a screaming, traumatized three-year-old girl being accosted by a TSA agent

  A man who refused to have his genitals touched was detained, then ordered to leave the airport, then ordered to stay, then threatened with a civil suit because he left without letting someone ‘touch his junk.’

  A child was semi-strip searched.

  A breast-cancer survivor was forced to remove her prosthetic breast.

  A bladder cancer survivor was left covered in his own urine after an agent’s rough handling burst his urostomy bag.

  But of course that was going on among us proles.  Among the ruling class things were a little different:

  Hilary Clinton laughed that of course she would avoid the pat downs.

  Janet Napolitano took care to comfort the beleaguered TSA agents, who have been demoralized by the public’s persistent objection to being fondled.

  John Boehner blithely skirted the discomfiting security procedures.

  President Obama lumped himself in with us saying the procedures were a necessary inconvenience to us all, as if he would ever get his junk touched by some rent-a-cop.

  And all of this is justified with the fear-mongering specter of last year’s Christmas Day Bomber; a failed attack foiled not by a vigilant government but by a combination of terrorist ineptitude and passenger initiative.

  As we scream for our freedom and demand that these offensive, obtrusive and invasive assaults end, the Ruling Class is shopping for 500 more naked scanners for airports and planning to install even more at train and bus stations and marinas.  Because we have the money to blow.  Or the Federal Reserve will give it to us anyway.  At this point it might be cheaper to just assign a Storm Trooper to follow every citizen from the bed to the shower to the toilet then to work and home again to make sure every one of us is obedient to our Masters.

  And really, when they’re grabbing your sixteen year old daughter’s breasts so she can fly to visit Grandma can such drastic measures really be so far away?

  
  

  
  

  Continue Reading