Worse Than McCarthyism: The United States of Fear

[McCamy Taylor]

I. Big Brother is Watching….and Listening

Karl Rove does not operate like Pat Buchanan, whose number one rule as a dirty trickster was secrecy. Rove styles himself as a modern day Rasputin, someone who intimidates his enemies with a sinister, brash bullying style. In this, he is like any organized crime thug. If you get your victim to piss himself before you ever start working him over, then half of your work is done for you.



Taking its cue from its chief dirty tricks master, the Bush-Cheney administration does not hide anything. All of its black ops have been laid out before us, just as the Inquisition used to show its victims the implements of torture as the first crucial step of torture. Fear can accomplish more than pain, violence and intimidation.

Since the things we fear the most are the ones that we imagine, films about Osama Bin Laden are not the most dangerous things in a democracy. Terrorists can be defeated. Defended against. The unknown can not even be imagined, much less anticipated or countered.

The Bush-Cheney administration plays with all its cards on the table. When W. told the world unabashedly “Yes” to the question “Does your administration spy on U.S. citizens?” he was not playing the part of village idiot. He was ensuring that we knew where we stand.

In the bull’s eye.

One of the very first things that Dick Cheney, spiritual heir of Dick Nixon did upon stealing the 2000 election was set up his blackmail ops. He persuaded AT&T and Verizon (but not Qwest) to give him access to every phone call, email and fax made in the U.S. 9/11 would later give him Article II authority to spy on international calls, but he has always been capable of spying on his political enemies. With the Justice Department under his control, that gave him the ability to target his political opponents. Most people are not criminals, in the conventional sense of the word, but there are federal laws which can be stretched to make everyone guilty .

II. Eliot Spitzer Resigned for Our Sins

Eliot Spitzer’s story is so simple in retrospect. Google “Eliot Spitzer” and “domestic spying” and you get 49,000 hits, many some variation of “The feds were probably wiretapping Spitzer, because he is a prominent Democrat and that is how they found out about the call girl.” Why do so many people believe that? Because the feds have taken great pains to make us believe that.

The story that federal prosecutors spun about the bank which notified the feds of a suspicious transaction was designed to sound cock and bull. We were always supposed to believe that Spitzer was caught in an illegal wiretap. When the Bush administration----which typically delights in prosecuting prominent Democrats on trumped up charges during election years---decided not to prosecute Spitzer for his Mann Act violation, this confirmed what we had all been programmed to suspect. The feds evidence would crumble if presented to a jury, which would ask Where did they really get their information? Maybe this case is tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.

We were never expected to believe that Eliot Spitzer was caught in any legal way. Instead, Americans were told that this lawyer son of a billionaire, rising political star and governor of New York State had been taken down for having consensual sex with a high priced call girl.

And if it happened to him, it could happen to you.

Except, it will never happen to you. You are one in 300,000,000 people. The only place that you are important enough to become the target of an Eliot Spitzer style wiretap sting is your own imagination, where each of us is the star.

Oh, the imagination is a powerful thing. It can conjure images much worse than any suicide bomber.



III. Martha Stewart Used a Phone, Too.

Forget for a moment that everyone hated Martha Stewart and wanted her to go to jail just to teach her not to be so damn perfect. Also forget that Enron had collapsed and W. had his Harkin scandal, and therefore someone had to spill blood to pay for the insider trading scandals of others. What did Martha Stewart actually do?

She listened to her stock broker, who told her that the daughter of the owner of a company was selling. And so, she agreed to sell, too.

Before suing Stewart, the SEC had never gone after the customer of a broker who offered his knowledge of what another customer had done as a reason to make a trade.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28904.html

According to the above link, the feds did not charge Aliza Waksal, the daughter if IMClone’s founder with insider trading (it was her stock dumping that lead Stewart to sell) even though she sold much more stock that Stewart based upon insider knowledge. Nor where other people who sold more stock based upon special knowledge targeted. Instead, they went after an assistant of Stewart’s stockbroker, threatened to charge him with a crime, he copped a plea in exchange for testifying against his boss and Stewart. The main charge against Stewart was that she lied to the feds and the public about "insider trading" in order to keep stock in her own company high, this even though she was never actually convicted of insider trading---only of conspiracy and lying. However, ask most people what she went to jail for and they will say "insider trading".

Why target a prominent figure like Martha Stewart? A rich and powerful Democratic woman known for being a savvy businesswoman, a former stock broker herself? I believe that the feds used her as an example, the same way that they used Spitzer. How many people have received tips from their stockbroker advising them “So and so is selling, so I think you should sell, too”?

Make the net broad enough and you can catch almost everyone in it. Imagine how many prominent Democrats must have worried about their own stock transactions after Martha Stewart went to jail.



IV. Child Porn that Isn’t
Just attaching the words “child pornography” to someone’s name is the kiss of death to a career. Ask any of the famous people who have been targeted by police in any country. The accusation gets all the headlines. The exoneration gets buried.

Now, you do not even have to have child pornography. The Supreme Court has said that all you have to do is get caught claiming that you have something that looks like child pornography or asking for something that looks like child pornography.

For instance, if you email your buddies and write something like Dudes, you have to see these nude pics my girlfriend sent me. You would swear that she is still in high school! That could be grounds for a felony arrest for pandering child pornography.

No prosecutor or jury would believe that a grandfather was offering children engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" when he sends an e-mail describing "kids in bed," Scalia said. The statute does not apply "where the material at issue is a harmless picture of a child in a bathtub," he added.

He said that those who advertise or sell movies were not in danger either. "We think it implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies, such as Amazon.com, believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera . . ." he said. "The average person understands that sex scenes in mainstream movies use nonchild actors, depict sexual activity in a way that would not rise to the explicit level necessary under the statute, or, in most cases, both."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-scotus20-2008may20,0,6024926.story

Scalia lies. He is old enough to remember attempts to call the film The Tin Drum child porno , and he knows about over-vigilant photo processing clerks who have turned in families for developing pics of nude babies. His court has enabled the Bush administration to add to its arsenal in its blackmail ops. Since the goal is not successful prosecution but intimidation and forced compliance, the mere threat of an investigation---complete with the usual leaks to the press---will be enough to convince the target to do whatever it is that the Bush administration wants done.

It has also added to the arsenal in its fear ops. Now, whenever people think about ordering anything online or sending photos online, they have to wonder Is this illegal ?

V. Hatch Act
Just this week the feds decided to tell us about something they claim happened two months ago.

A NASA employee has been suspended for soliciting donations and writing politically partisan blog posts and sending e-mail messages while at work, violations of the Hatch Act.

Office of the Special Counsel officials said a Johnson Space Center employee promoted local and state political candidates in 2006 and 2007 through his Internet writings.

The officials also found the employee solicited small campaign donations two times in 2006 through blogs.

The employee has been suspended for 180 days without pay. The suspension started March 30.

Special Counsel Scott Bloch said the suspension is part of an effort to crack down on Internet- and technology-based Hatch violations.

http://www.fcw.com/online/news/152653-1.html

Note that some of the “charges” listed above are not violations of the Hatch Act.

Rules of the Act
Below are the primary guidelines that active Federal employees need to follow when working or volunteering on a political campaign for federal office. This list is not all-inclusive, and questions regarding the legality of the application of any event or policy should be properly researched or investigated beforehand. This list does not encompass all that is or is not allowed per the regulation.
Active Federal employees may:
• Be a candidate in a non-partisan political election (that is, an election where the candidate is not running as a member of a political party; examples include city council and school board elections)
• Register and vote as they choose
• Assist in Voter Registration Drives
• Express opinions about candidates and issues
• Attend fundraisers and contribute money to political organizations and campaigns
• Volunteer on a campaign
• Recruit volunteers for a political campaign
• Participate in activities such as phone banking and precinct walking
• Display bumper stickers, lawn signs, and other campaign paraphernalia
• Raise money for their union's political action committee from other union members
• Volunteer, run for, and hold an office in a local or state political party

Active Federal employees may not:
• Be a candidate in a political election in which any candidate represents a political party
• Raise money for a partisan political campaign
• Allow their names to be used in any fundraising appeal on behalf of a partisan political campaign
• Participate in a phone bank that is engaged in fundraising for a partisan campaign
• Raise money for their union's political action committee from persons other than their fellow union members

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

The main violation was soliciting money for a political party. That is a no-no if you work for the federal government. Almost all employers object to the use of their computers and time for private activity, too. However, you are allowed to blog away from the job and campaign and do other political activities. Note the story is misleading. I believe that it is deliberately misleading in an attempt to make the many people who work for the government and who have blogged about politics suddenly afraid for their jobs----and scared about reprisals.


VI. Where Am I Going With All This? United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Blackmail can be used to make anyone do things that they would not ordinarily do. It can persuade journalists to write oppo for one political party or candidate that they might be ashamed to pen for money. It can persuade a politician to cast a vote that violates his or her conscience. Fear of blackmail can make ordinary citizens so afraid of losing their jobs (especially in a time of recession like now) that they dare not speak out against the government, though they use their vote as a form of protest.

People can be blackmailed for things which are not even criminal. Type the wrong words into an email---a racial or sexual slur used as a joke, for instance---and you might find yourself subject to blackmail, if your reputation as a liberal could suffer. Make a nasty comment about a rape victim----that would not look good in print if you are someone who is a feminist in your day job. Dial up a phone sex line or spend time on internet porn sites---- everyone does that , whether they admit it or not---and if you are a Christian conservative you can be blackmailed into backing John McCain.

When you’re living under the watchful eye and ear of Big Brother, you can never know why anyone does anything any more. Is it because they want to or it is because they have been backed into a corner?

However that is not the point that I am trying to make with this journal. I am going to put the next few lines in bold, because they are important. If you have sensitive eyes, get ready to cover them. It does not matter if there is a blackmail ring being run out of Dick Cheney’s office or not..

Now, how can I say that?

Simple. What matters is that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney want us to believe that they have the combined powers of J. Edgar Hoover and the KGB to know all of our crimes and swoop down upon us whenever it suits their political purposes. That is why they targeted Eliot Spitzer and Martha Stewart. That is why we have another ridiculously vague Child Pornography Law. That is why we have press releases from someone about Hatch Act violations that give misleading information. That is why it is still a crime to smoke weed. If critics of the government believe that they are guilty of something, anything then they are fearful.

People who decry the use of Terra Warnings or 3 am Ads as fear mongering do not understand the subtly of Big Brother as described in 1984 . Big Brother makes you fear yourself. Your own natural impulses. Your own spontaneity. Big Brother tells you that if you are charged with a crime, the world will blame you, as it blamed Stewart and Spitzer. It tells you that if your reputation is trashed, as Dan Rather’s was trashed by his own employer, CBS, your colleagues will blame you. Big Bother fills you will shame and guilt---including shame and guilt at feeling afraid.

That is why it is so important that we at DU stand together and show solidarity behind fellow Democrats and progressives who are targeted unfairly by federal prosecutors under draconian laws like the Mann Act or by the press. Every time we allow one of our own to be thinned from the herd, we reinforce the fear which the rest of us share that we are alone in this battle and that no one really gives a damn about anyone but himself.

That does not mean adopting a “So and so can do not wrong because he is a Democrat” attitude. This has never been the Democratic way, and anyone who claims the opposite is either very young or a recent convert from the Republican Party, where that kind of lock step mentality is popular. Constructive criticism of actions is always helpful, otherwise we end up with candidates who do not represent us. If we are afraid to question our own candidate, that only increases our sense of helplessness and fear.

The Bush DOJ will be particularly anxious to attack African-Americans, Latinos, Democrats and high profile progressives as we approach the general election season. Voter registration efforts will also be likely targets. I have noticed a tendency this year for fellow Democrats to shun the people who are attacked in this way. Better to disavow these corrupt types seems to be the tendency lately. Keep our name brand free of taint .

The American voter is not looking for a Party that is pure as the driven snow. It is looking for a Party that can fight back. Anyone can look at the threat of physical violence in an RNC Terra ad and say "I'm not scared." It takes a special kind of strength to fight against character assassination and threats of law suits and frivolous prosecution.

[Aragorn]

1. all too true

Although I hesitate to reply over the internet...

I see this every day here in East Texas. After standing up for it so many times on behalf of others I have been targeted too. Local lawyers are afraid to stand up to it. I understand one local lawyer who agreed to represent witnesses against the PD a few years ago died from "suicide" - from 2 bullets to the forehead.

People who won civil cases against the PD are jailed years later for "failure to appear" - we mailed you a summons, they are told, and you failed to appear.

Loved your picture - very kafkaesque.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. What does this OP have to do with the Primaries?

shouldn't this be in General Discussion or Op Eds?

[McCamy Taylor]

3. I debated that, too. It was the Hatch Act story that lead me to write it

and it is about suppression of individual campaign activity. Some of Obama's supporters are career government workers who are fed up with the activities of the political government workers who have been instated under Bush and Co. I believe that the Hatch Act story is being circulated to intimidate them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. we are hoping for a candidate to lead us out of this orwellian nightmare

[TrogL]

5. This is Kafkaesque

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Just keep thinking Frank Capra

[intaglio]

7. OK MT you just got your first rec from me

Shocking isn't it? Though I thing GD would be better

[cali]

8. ack. ridiculous. First of all, Karl Rove is no Svengali. He's a two bit

political hack, and not even a very good one. His permanent majority was anything but permanent. Secondly, the Bush/Cheney gang hardly puts everything on the table. This has been a highly secretive administration. Unfortunately for them, a significant number of rats have fled from their ship.

Lastly, the OP is disjointed and doesn't make a rational point. As always the writing itself is poor and muddled.

[planetc]

9. Do you think it is the fear-of-blackmail factor or the threat of anthrax ...

...or the threat of anthrax-filled envelopes that has frozen Congress in its tracks? Or both, of course. It's clear to me that the scenario you describe is all too believable, but I still cannot personally get past the perception that if the Congress of the United States doesn't have the power to bring the Bush regime to justice, what can the great mass of us do, except go out on strike, of course. And the real movers and shakers will retain considerable power even if a Democratic president is sworn in. Without a thorough house cleaning, anyone attempting to run the country for the people will be in considerable danger. It is the apparent passivity of Congress that continues to confound me. Impeachable crimes in abundance are a matter of public record, but impeachment is "off the table." Why, do you think?

[cali]

10. First of all, getting anthrax sent to him, didn't exactly inhibit Pat Leahy.

Secondly, the reason they didn't go for impeachment is because they fear losing their majority.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Anthrax makes Congress the victim/hero. That's good pr. As I said personal bravery

the kind that laughs at the threat of a terrorist attack or physical attacks---that is easy in America where boys are brought up to emulate John Wayne.

It is much harder for politicians---and Americans---to imagine themselves enduring the mockery of the press. No politician wants to be treated like Gore was in 2000, called a Sore Loserman by the MSM for demanding that the vote be counted. Gore showed a great deal of personal courage in taking the case as far as he did---all the way to the top and forcing the Bush Coup to play the SCOTUS Card which revealed to the world how illegitimate the regime would be. That is why Al Gore is so respected among Democrats. He did not care about his "character". He did not bow down in the face of character attacks.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is widely perceived to have backed down in Ohio 2004, because he was told that the courts would do to him what was done to Gore--meaning that his efforts would produce the same results---and that the press would do to him what it did to Gore, too. And it probably would have done so. The press conspired to hide the exit polls. If they would do that, they would think nothing of calling Kerry a Sore Loserman too. And a threat to national security, since Bush launched a brutal offensive in Iraq the day after the election to cover up the election theft. Kerry, the statesman may not have wanted to be tarnished as Gore, the fighter, was not concerned about being tarnished.

Some members of Congress may fear blackmail. They know about AT&T's wiretap room. They have even better reason to fear that the press will shred their character. Every charge which they make against Bush and Cheney the press will make against a Democrat in multiples. If Bush lied, then the RNC will come up with 10 Democratic "lies" to parade across the front pages of the Washington Post, Times, Tribune, CBS, Tim Russert. If Bush did it, the Clinton did it a hundred times over.

It is hard to stand up for what is just and right if your number one priority is being loved by everyone.

[planetc]

12. You are, as usual, horribly convincing ...

You're saying that the (once) richest, mightiest country in the world is being held hostage by a high school "in" group, who have the power to cast anyone who won't sign on to their program into the outer darkness of ... social unacceptability. That the Congress and the capable men and women in it are afraid of being called names. That Iraqis continue to die, and poor saps continue to be tortured, and the US armed forces continue to be killed and wounded and crazed because our leaders don't want to be called names.

I find this thesis, as I said, horribly believable. The people of the United States, many of them decent, hard working, charitable people, are being led through a stylized dance, a national charade, of democracy so that some men won't have to be called names.

Do you have an idea about how we can get ourselves out of this mess?