Good News: Feds Are Tracking Your Border Crossings!

If you travel internationally and return by land, you'll be pleased to know about a newly announced federal weapon in the war on terror -- a program which has already begun recording (and will continue to record) all your land entrances into the US in a database designed to protect the nation from people like you.

You know who you are, don't you? You probably drive a car, or maybe you ride on a bus or a train. You go to Canada or Mexico, for day trips or vacations.

You don't go to Europe or Asia, or the Caribbean, not to mention Australia or New Zealand. You can't afford to travel by plane, and you don't own your own yacht, so you must be up to no good. Or at least that's what we have to assume.

By enabling the government to track when, where and how often you return to the US, the national database will help to protect us from indescribable dangers which can only be averted by enabling the government to track when, where and how often you return to the US.

By keeping this data over a long period of time and mining it aggressively, the government will be able to identify the dangerous people who cross the border often, or seldom, or at the same time every day, or at different times every day. This sort of analysis works best with a massive collection of data, so you will be very happy to hear that this is exactly what they're building.

Fortunately, the information gathered by border inspection officers and stored in this national database will be kept for at least fifteen years, so we can all be confident that the enormous effort devoted to data collection and storage won't be wasted -- instead the data-mining opportunities will be maximized.

Fortunately as well, the information in the database will not be selfishly hoarded by the federal government; on the contrary, it could be made available to foreign governments trying to decide whether or not to let you in, corporations trying to decide whether to hire or fire you, and/or law enforcement officers trying to decide whether or not you're an unlawful enemy combatant. These provisions will help keep us safe from hazards so awful I'd prefer not to describe them.

Furthermore, you'll be thrilled to know that the newly announced federal program is not a violation of your right to privacy. You actually have no such right, and you never did.

So don't worry about it -- just enjoy!

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Local And State Police To Be Granted New Spy Powers

According to Spencer Hsu and Carrie Johnson in the Washington Post,

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

The proposed changes would revise the federal government's rules for police intelligence-gathering for the first time since 1993 and would apply to any of the nation's 18,000 state and local police agencies that receive roughly $1.6 billion each year in federal grants.

Quietly unveiled late last month, the proposal is part of a flurry of domestic intelligence changes issued and planned by the Bush administration in its waning months. They include a recent executive order that guides the reorganization of federal spy agencies and a pending Justice Department overhaul of FBI procedures for gathering intelligence and investigating terrorism cases within U.S. borders.

Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the Watergate era.

They're kidding, right? "Some say"? "Since the Watergate era"?

No, they're not kidding. This is post-democratic American simulated journalism at its finest -- which is to say, get used to it!

They can't (or won't) say it, but I can:

These moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to enshrine the greatest expansion of executive authority ever!

This is much, much worse than Watergate -- which was considered a national disgrace, remember? ... which was resisted by the Democrats and by the press, remember? ... including a couple of young "reporters", one of whom was actually an intelligence officer, and as we found out years later, the whole thing was a great big charade, designed to oust the by-then completely crazy Richard Nixon and leave the reins of power in the hands of the much more pliable long-time FBI asset, Gerald Ford ... Do you remember that?

And much of this simulated national drama was played out in the editorial offices of ... [drum roll] ... the Washington Post! Do you remember that, too?

We're not supposed to remember anything anymore, apparently. Or not much, anyway. So for the the next several paragraphs, our esteemed authors give us the point of view of government supporters, and they say things like this:

Supporters say the measures simply codify existing counterterrorism practices and policies that are endorsed by lawmakers and independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission. They say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight.

WOW! Really?? Did somebody actually type the phrase "independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission"? Or did the editors simply copy and paste it in, like I did?

How could you type such a thing? How could such a thought even enter your head?

Actually, it makes as much sense as "internal oversight", doesn't it?

Here's the rub:

Under the Justice Department proposal for state and local police, published for public comment July 31, law enforcement agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists. They also could share results with a constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

And that's not all.

On the day the police proposal was put forward, the White House announced it had updated Reagan-era operating guidelines for the U.S. intelligence community. The revised Executive Order 12333 established guidelines for overseas spying and called for better sharing of information with local law enforcement. It directed the CIA and other spy agencies to "provide specialized equipment, technical knowledge or assistance of expert personnel" to support state and local authorities.

And last week, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that the Justice Department will release new guidelines within weeks to streamline and unify FBI investigations of criminal law enforcement matters and national security threats. The changes will clarify what tools agents can employ and whose approval they must obtain.

With the FBI having recently refused to assure Congress it wasn't protecting violent criminal informants, and in the wake of one transparent "terrorist" entrapment fiction after another, it's tough to imagine that "streamlining" the FBI's investigations could possibly be a good thing for anybody -- except the FBI.

And it's not even possible to imagine Michael Mukasey -- who wouldn't even admit that waterboarding is torture -- doing anything to protect your Constitutional rights, especially at the expense of the radical "unitary executive".

As even the Washington Post notes:

The recent moves continue a steady expansion of the intelligence role of U.S. law enforcement, breaking down a wall erected after congressional hearings in 1976 to rein in such activity.

Some other interesting points from the same article:

The push to transform FBI and local police intelligence operations has triggered wider debate over who will be targeted, what will be done with the information collected and who will oversee such activities.

To these three easy questions, the answers are: [1] Everybody, especially YOU. [2] Anything they want to do, and [3] Nobody whose interests correspond with yours.

The Post notes that

Many security analysts faulted U.S. authorities after the 2001 terrorist attacks, saying the FBI was not combating terrorist plots before they were carried out and needed to proactively use intelligence.

But rather than following up on the next logical question, namely: "Why didn't they use the intelligence they were gathering?", Spencer Hsu and Carrie Johnson protect their paychecks (certain lines must not be crossed, wink wink!, nudge nudge!), although they do admit that

civil liberties groups and some members of Congress have criticized the administration for unilaterally expanding surveillance and moving too fast to share sensitive information without safeguards.

But as always in post-democratic American simulated-journalism, nobody's allowed (or sufficiently courageous -- what's the difference?) to state a clear fact without putting it in the mouth of a speaker who is easily dismissed as "political". Thus

Critics say preemptive law enforcement in the absence of a crime can violate the Constitution and due process. They cite the administration's long-running warrantless-surveillance program, which was set up outside the courts, and the FBI's acknowledgment that it abused its intelligence-gathering privileges in hundreds of cases by using inadequately documented administrative orders to obtain telephone, e-mail, financial and other personal records of U.S. citizens without warrants.

This technique hides the obvious fact that "preemptive law enforcement in the absence of a crime" is not law enforcement at all.

It does violate the Constitution and it obliterates due process.

But the authors can't (or won't) say that; instead they attribute a watered-down version of the obvious truth in the words of anonymous "critics" and move on to quote a 9/11 cover-up insider -- sorry: independent expert -- Jamie Gorelick:

Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.

"If properly implemented, this should assure the public that people are not being investigated by agencies who are not trained in how to protect constitutional rights," said the former deputy attorney general. "The FBI will need to be vigilant -- both in its policies and its practices -- to live up to that promise."

It's beyond laughable, really. Gorelick blames the state police, emphasizes the need for oversight, and winds up with a conditional recommendation: "If properly implemented".

That's a good one. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. But the Washington Post can't say that either.

To its credit, the Post article does include some critical quotes attributed to a named individual, who hits at least one nail on the head:

[Michael] German, an FBI agent for 16 years [and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union], said easing established limits on intelligence-gathering would lead to abuses against peaceful political dissenters. In addition to the Maryland case, he pointed to reports in the past six years that undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention; that California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists; and that Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered.

"If police officers no longer see themselves as engaged in protecting their communities from criminals and instead as domestic intelligence agents working on behalf of the CIA, they will be encouraged to collect more information," German said. "It turns police officers into spies on behalf of the federal government."

But one former FBI officer's opinion doesn't carry much weight against the advancing twin waves of horse manure and tyranny:

Mukasey said the changes will give the next president "some of the tools necessary to keep us safe" ... [and that] the new guidelines will make it easier for the FBI to use informants, conduct physical and photographic surveillance, and share data in intelligence cases, on the grounds that doing so should be no harder than in investigations of ordinary crimes.

If there's one thing we don't need, it's new rules to "make it easier for the FBI to use informants".

And if there's one thing we do need, it's a complete understanding of what it means when "law enforcement" officials claim that collection of intelligence in the absence of a crime should be "no harder" than a criminal investigation.

But the Washington Post can't tell you that, either.

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Mission Almost Accomplished: Immunity For Telecoms Is On The Way

Immunity is on the way for our spying-without-a-warrant telecoms, as Eric Lichtblau reports in the New York Times:

After months of wrangling, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress struck a deal on Thursday to overhaul the rules on the government’s wiretapping powers and provide what amounts to legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The deal, expanding the government’s powers in some key respects, would allow intelligence officials to use broad warrants to eavesdrop on foreign targets and conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined important national security information would be lost otherwise. If approved, as appears likely, it would be the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years.

The agreement would settle one of the thorniest issues in dispute by providing immunity to the phone companies in the Sept. 11 program as long as a federal district court determines that they received legitimate requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.

With some AT&T and other telecommunications companies now facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”

“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence.

Somehow we won't be surprised. Even the supposedly liberal NYT can't help piling on:

The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.

The White House immediately endorsed the proposal, which is likely to be voted on in the House on Friday and in the Senate next week.

While passage seems almost certain in Congress, the plan will nonetheless face opposition from lawmakers on both political wings, with some conservatives asserting that it includes too many checks on government surveillance powers and liberals asserting that it gives legal sanction to a wiretapping program that they contend was illegal in the first place.

It WAS illegal in the first place. And worse than that: The system it was designed to replace was illegal too!

FISA was established to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. The new law is designed to take out the few teeth that remain in FISA. And the passage seems almost certain in Congress, which once again is preparing to give the White House even more than it ever expected to get -- all of which is blatantly illegal.

But the law doesn't matter anymore, and neither does the truth. Not to the White House, and not to the New York Times.

You probably noticed that long ago ... but everybody needs a reminder now and again.

Chris Floyd: The Torture Election

I'm still hampered by injury; while I'm recovering, blogging poses several difficult questions. One of the few answers I can find goes like this:

Many of my readers are reading Chris Floyd every day already. If you're not one of them, please take the hint!

Floyd's most recent piece is brilliant, as always ... but maybe a little bit more so this time. Here it is, in full and by kind permission, with a cold comment or two along the way.

The Torture Election

As the presidential horse race grows more frenzied and absurd -- Flag pins! Bowling! Obliteration! -- it is important to keep in mind what the election is really about: torture.

Specifically, the use of torture as an openly admitted, formally recognized instrument of national policy, approved at the highest level of government. The Bush Administration has now dropped all pretense that it is not engaging in interrogation techniques and incarceration practices long recognized by both international and U.S. law as blatantly criminal. What's more, the Administration boldly asserts that the president can simply ignore laws prohibiting torture if he feels that circumstances warrant the use of "interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law," the New York Times reported over the weekend.

(The Washington Post had a similar story -- similarly buried deep inside the paper. A brazen declaration of presidential tyranny -- in the service of torture, no less -- was considered worth mentioning somewhere in the "papers of record," but obviously not worth making a big fuss about.)

The key words here are "openly admitted" and "formally recognized". Torture as an instrument of national policy runs deep in our history. So do death squads, for that matter, and subversion of democracy. Most of that history, of course, has been hidden from American eyes; but nothing is hidden from the "locals". The "recipients" of our "generosity" always know about the "collateral damage".

Torture is at the very heart of the Bush presidency, the most quintessential manifestation of its governing philosophy: a "Commander-in-Chief" state, where presidential directives can override any law in the name of "national security." The use of torture demonstrates that not even the most heinous crimes -- including techniques used by Nazi sadists and KGB brutes -- are beyond the pale of the "unitary executive's" arbitrary will. On the basis of this authoritarian power -- established through a series of presidential orders and "legal" opinions by appointed lackeys -- many other crimes can be "justified": aggressive war; kidnapping and rendition; indefinite detention; secret prisons; warrantless surveillance; even the "extrajudicial killing" of people the president designates as terrorists or terrorist "suspects."

In keeping with the simultaneous perversion of language and culture, it's misleading to refer to systematic torture as an "interrogation technique", "enhanced" or otherwise.

Unlike what you see on "24", or what you hear when our unelected representatives discuss the "merits" and "necessity" of "enhanced interrogation", torture is not typically used to extract information. This is the conclusion drawn by the legal team at Seton Hall which has been studying unclassified DoD records, based on the finding that most of the detainees in Guantanamo were "interrogated" once a month on a regular schedule.

If you had a detainee in your custody who you thought had information that could prevent an imminent terrorist attack, and you only interrogated him once a month, you'd be derelict in your duty. And it's very unlikely that you'd remain in your position. So let's be clear about the Bush administration's use of torture: it's an instrument of dominance and control, it's a tool of humiliation and degradation, it's a source of sadistic pleasure, and if openly proclaimed it has a chilling effect on domestic dissent. But it's not a source of actionable intelligence.

Indeed, under the Bush administration, no "intelligence" is "actionable" anyway, nor is it intended as such. Each bit of "intelligence" is simply a public relations item, fixed around a previously determined policy. And torture helps to produce even more public relations items. So they have all these reasons -- in their eyes -- to do it, and no reason -- again in their eyes -- not to do it.

The "logic" is simple: unencumbered by moral and ethical questions about deliberately and needlessly inflicting pain and fear on defenseless and possibly innocent people, the torturers just ask themselves: "Can anybody stop me?"

The highest officials of the Bush Administration have gone to enormous lengths to twist, pervert and destroy legal precepts that have been in force in Anglo-American law for centuries -- precisely because they know that their policies are criminal under any reasonable understanding of the law. Bush, and the likely prime mover of the torture regime, longtime authoritarian Dick Cheney, were told at the very beginning that the policies they were instigating would leave them and their minions open to criminal charges. That's why the Administration's legal hacks have devoted so much relentless attention on subverting the Geneva Conventions, which are incorporated into and have the full force of American law.

And this is why the Bush "legal" approach is at once so brilliant and so dangerous: if an act recognized worldwide as heinous can be excused based on the proclaimed intention of the perpetrator, then all rules are off, for selected perpetrators.

Bush and his minions know that if the rule of law is ever restored -- even partially and imperfectly -- they will be rightly be subject to prosecution, imprisonment and possibly even execution.

Execution seems most certain in my cold view; it also seems pitifully inadequate, even though the number of minions who would be endangered by such a restoration of law is almost impossible to overestimate.

And this is why torture is the core issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in the presidential campaign. Iraq is not really an issue; whoever wins, the war will go on, in one form or another. Even under the so-called withdrawal plans of the "progressive" candidates, Americans will be killing and dying in Iraq for years to come. As for the economy, by their own admission none of the presidential aspirants will do anything more than tinker around the edges of the present rapacious system -- an unholy marriage of crony capitalism and corporate socialism that has devastated America's communities, left millions with harsher, diminished lives, corrupted civic society and degraded and homogenized American culture. For the elite factions that thrive on war profits and the brutal economic structure, none of the candidates represents a serious enough threat for any action -- beyond the usual lying, sabotage, vote-rigging and media manipulation to get their favorite into power, of course.

But torture is a different matter. Consider how many very powerful people -- and hundreds of their minions -- face very serious charges if the next president decides to apply the law. Will they really allow this to happen? Or even risk allowing this to happen?

Right now, the torturers control the military and the security apparatus, including many secret forces and units that we know little or nothing about. They have already used these assets to launch a war of aggression, to instigate a system of torture, to spy without restraint on the American people, and to imprison anyone in the world they claim is a terrorist. Why should we imagine that they will draw the line at using these assets to save themselves from prison -- or the poison needle?

Several wars of aggression, now that I think about it. It has seemed to some people -- and it still seems quite possible to me -- that they might even use these assets to stage "another 9/11" in order to prevent another "democratic" election.

It would seem then that the Bush Administration has only two choices: cut a deal with the candidates on torture -- or eliminate them from the race, one way or another.

A potential third choice then would be to eliminate the election itself. But this would be a drastic step which might engender resistance. It may be difficult to imagine whence or from whom such resistance might come, but surely a smoother path to absolute tyranny must seem safer and more secure to the tyrants. So it stands to reason that they would try to hold an "election" if at all possible, under carefully controlled conditions, of course.

If they lost control of the conditions, the balance might tip differently. But for now, at least, it seems we ought to pay attention to the candidates.

It goes without saying that John McCain will do nothing but revel in the authoritarian powers brought into the open by Bush; certainly it is inconceivable that he would ever prosecute the instigators of the Bush torture regime. Thus the focus here falls on the winner of the Democratic nomination.

It is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who will have to come to terms with the Bush team on torture. (If they have not already done so, that is. Given the intimate, growing personal ties between the Bushes and the Clintons, one could plausibly surmise that Clinton at least has already signalled her benevolent intentions on this point. But perhaps not. The true relations of our ruling families remain forever obscured from the rabble. Meanwhile, Obama is clearly leaning in the "right" direction, as noted here, although he retains a little wiggle room; perhaps he's not yet sealed the deal.)

It may still be possible to imagine Barack Obama as a "stealth candidate" -- something like George W. Bush in reverse. As you may remember, Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" who would run a "humble foreign policy". We now know that his intention was just the opposite. And it may be true that Bush never would have been elected if the electorate understood what he really wanted. (He was never legitimately elected anyway, but who's counting?)

For a while four years ago I entertained fantasies of John Kerry as a stealth candidate. "It's all tactical," I told myself. "He's trying to outflank Bush on the side of more war because he thinks he can win that way. Then he'll stop the war." But it was always obvious that Kerry meant what he said. He didn't want to end the war. He didn't even want to win the election. Kerry as a "stealth candidate" had been a foolish if hopeful illusion.

This time around, Barack Obama doesn't seem particularly committed to restoring the rule of law or holding the Bush administration accountable for obvious crimes against the nation and against humanity. Why is this? Is it because he really doesn't care? Or is it because he's a "stealth candidate" who knows he can't speak freely about anything this serious and remain a viable and visible presidential candidate?

But what if he wins? Will he then reveal a different agenda? In other words, is Barack Obama secretly riding in on a white horse? Chris Floyd doesn't imagine him coming to the rescue of the republic anytime soon.

In the most benign scenario for these negotiations, perhaps some small fry will be offered up as a PR sop for the victor. Just as Scooter Libby took the fall for Karl Rove (in another obvious backroom deal), we might see John Yoo or that despised putz-for-all-seasons, Doug Feith, put on trial, while Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and the other "principals" go free.

But it is much more likely that any acknowledgement of criminality will be unacceptable to the torturers. It would establish a principle -- or rather, re-establish a principle -- that would forever leave them open to future prosecution.

And this is precisely the point. They have gone so far to defeat the rule of law -- and to discredit the notion that the rule of law is a good thing -- that they would earnestly wish to avoid seeing it take root again in any form -- on principle and as a matter of existential necessity.

So again, we come down to a stark choice for the Democratic candidate: either agree to "move on" from "bitter partisan rancor" over "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- or else. There are of course several ways to eliminate someone from public life; the tools have been refined somewhat since the days when "lone gunmen" stalked the land, removing inconvenient figures.

Is Obama thinking like this, too? Does he imagine he could become president by slipping under the radar with secret plans to make all the criminals accountable after his inauguration? And if so, what then? With such "treasonous" ideas, how long could he stay in the Oval Office? How long could he stay alive?

Those audacious enough to harbor some hope may be working overtime by now.

But given the proven nature of the Bush team -- and the dire consequences they face from any normal, rightful application of the law -- we should assume that they will do whatever it takes to escape those consequences.

And that's why torture is the decisive issue of this campaign. But this decision will not be in the hands of the voters; it will be made -- as most of the decisions that govern our lives are made -- in the inner sanctums of elite power.

And that means, unless I am much mistaken, that the key decisions are already made.

We would never have been led down this evil road if we were meant to turn back.

Oh no. The big decisions were made years ago. All the rest has been implementation.

Funhouse Mirror: Looking At America With The New York Times

Ages ago -- Monday -- in a bizarre year-end editorial called "Looking At America", the New York Times listed some of the most egregious wrongs of the past seven years.

President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Indeed. And that's not all.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

All this makes perfect sense, does it not?

It condemns the Bush administration -- Bush and Cheney particularly -- for egregious and obvious crimes: crimes against the Constitution, crimes against the people of America, crimes against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, crimes against humanity itself..

So what's bizarre?

First, the "explanation" for all these crimes:

This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

And second, the proposed solution:

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

What kind of a mirror is the New York Times using?

Against all indications, the NYT attributes the actions of the Bush administration to "panic and ideology".

It's clear that neither Bush nor Cheney have panicked -- on 9/11 or ever since. They've been sitting quietly, watching the universe unfold -- right into their laps!

And it's even clearer that their ideology plays a heavy role in what they have done. So why talk about panic?

For that matter, why talk about "this new enemy" without trying to identify it?

The Bush administration took less than a day to decide who was to be held responsible for 9/11, less than a month to start bombing Afghanistan, less than two months to pass the enormous and egregious PATRIOT Act, and more than a year to empower a whitewash disguised as an investigation. What does that tell you?

The administration was (and still is) heavily populated by members of an extremist group which called for a cataclysmic attack on America, in order to enable their radical agenda, just before the 2000 election.

They wanted the catastrophic events of 9/11 to happen, they were ready for them to happen, and they took full advantage of them when they did happen. What does that tell you?

They were in position to make it happen, and they have done everything in their power to deceive us about the how and why of almost everything ever since! ... And we're supposed to believe they're telling us the truth about 9/11!

Alas, the official story of 9/11 is a shaky one, and our nation's leading paper could knock it down with one good investigative series -- but they won't. They'd prefer to enumerate the abuses we suffer at the hands of our own government and hope that we can vote our way out of trouble.

But the Times' prescription for healing America bears absolutely no resemblance to reality!

It's not the voters' fault that Bush got into the White House in the first place, and it's not their fault that he got to stay there for a second term. Both presidential elections were not only stolen by the Republicans but also given away by the Democrats, and the major American media -- led by the purportedly liberal New York Times -- played a huge role in legitimizing the theft, if not the giveaway.

Even now -- even though the illegitimacy of both "elections" is obvious, and even though the ideology of the "winners" has caused us enormous damage, the nation's "leading" newspaper will still not investigate or even acknowledge election fraud, unless it happens in a foreign country.

Even now -- with the official story of 9/11 in tatters -- the NYT will not investigate the events of that day, or even acknowledge that the official story is a crock of manure.

It's only fitting, I suppose, in a fun-house mirror kind of way, for the New York Times to say:

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably.

In point of awful fact, the only people who have "the integrity, principle and decency" to use "the awesome powers of the presidency" "honorably" are ignored, if not denigrated, by the nation's corporate press as a whole and by the New York Times in particular.

The hypocrisy required for the New York Times to pontificate about the "wisdom" of the American voters is absolutely beyond measure.

So much for the "liberal media".

If you don't have symptoms resembling stomach flu, you haven't been paying attention.

Where's The Paper? Did The BBC And A Cambridge Don Commit Fraud To Cover Up Mass Murder?

[Updated twice, see below]

On September 11, 2007, the BBC published an article based on a press release from the University of Cambridge called "9/11 demolition theory challenged", describing research purportedly done by Cambridge lecturer Keith Seffen.

Dr. Seffen, the BBC said, had constructed a mathematical model of the twin towers of the World Trade Center which showed that

once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

According to the BBC, Dr. Seffen proceeded from this mathematical model to describe the destruction of the twin towers as

a "very ordinary thing to happen".

The BBC also reported that Dr. Seffen's findings

are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) is a monthly publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). When a search of the ASCE website turned up no mention of a Keith Seffen, nor any mention of any "Seffen", I began to detect the distinctive smell of manure.

I am familiar with mathematical models and that distinctive smell. I've taught college math; I've designed mathematical modeling software; and once during a debate I "proved", with a very simple series of deceptive "calculations", that zero "equals" infinity. To make a long story short, this "paper" reminded me of that "proof". So I was particularly anxious to see it, and disappointed when I found out it was unavailable.

I also began to suspect the worst: not only that the paper hadn't been published, and was not going to be published, but that perhaps the paper hadn't even been written. After all, unless you can "prove" that zero "equals" infinity, it would be very difficult to construct the "proof" described by the Cambridge press release.

I wrote a short piece that day about the BBC News item, pointing out that no such paper had been published by the JEM, nor indeed by any publication of the ASCE. Shortly thereafter, the BBC piece was changed to say that Dr. Seffen's findings

are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics

and I updated my piece to reflect this change. Three days later I wrote a second piece, a longer and more serious look at the press release from Cambridge. Then I started watching for Dr. Seffen's name on the net, trying not to miss anything published about him or his mathematical model. The results of that survey are published in my most recent article on this subject, "Seffen's Folly: Attempted 9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure".

This article documents various attempts to obtain clarification from Dr. Seffen, the purported author, and Ross Corotis, the editor of the journal which supposedly published -- or is about to publish -- the paper.

The American Society of Civil Engineers and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics

From the website of the American Society of Civil Engineers we can find ASCE's monthly Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and thence JEM's Current Issue: Table of Contents.

You may note that nothing from Dr. Seffen is listed on this page. We can search the ASCE library from this page; I searched "all issues" for "Seffen".

The search returned:

You were searching for : (Seffen)

No documents found for your query.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics lists Ross B. Corotis (Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder) as its editor.

Ross Corotis

Ross B. Corotis, editor of the JEM, is also a professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Theoretically, at least, as the editor of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Dr. Corotis should have some interest in what Cambridge and the BBC are saying about the journal he edits. One might expect him to have some knowledge about it, too. Unfortunately Dr. Corotis has chosen not to share any of that knowledge, as indicated by his failure to reply to the email quoted below:

Dear Dr. Corotis

I have read with great interest the article published by BBC last month regarding a mathematical model of the collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers which according to the BBC was written by Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge and published (or to be published) in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

It gets a bit confusing, because the original BBC piece said Seffen's "findings are published" but a later version says his "findings are to be published". I have checked the press release from Cambridge but it is is not clear on this point.

I'm intrigued by the description of Dr. Seffen's analysis and I have been searching the net looking for the paper, but without finding it. Fortunately, I did manage to find a page which says you edit the ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics and another page with your email address(es). I am hoping you might be able to answer a few simple questions:

Has Keith Seffen's paper, "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis" in fact been published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics?

If so, can you tell me the number of the issue in which it appeared and/or the date of publication?

Otherwise, can you tell me whether the paper is scheduled to be published?

And if so, can you tell me the issue and/or date when it will be published?



Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide.

Dr. Corotis didn't see fit to reply to my message. Or maybe he just got busy and forgot.

Why don't you email Dr. Corotis and ask him what he has to say about all this? His email address is [email protected], and I'm sure he'd be glad to hear from you.

Keith Seffen

From Keith Seffen's page at the University of Cambridge website we can find the page that lists Keith Seffen's technical papers. There we can read his offer:

please request if WWW access unavailable

This was good news to me because the most interesting item listed on this page

K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press

does not appear to be available. I suppose that's exactly what it means when it says "in press", but nevertheless I did attempt to take Dr. Seffen up on his offer.

Unfortunately Dr. Seffen failed repeatedly to reply to the following message:

Dear Dr. Seffen

I read with great interest the article published by BBC last month regarding your mathematical model of the collapse of the twin towers. Lately I have been searching the net for your paper but without finding it. Fortunately, I did manage to find a web page where you say: "Technical writings: please request if WWW access unavailable".

I was most heartened to read this and I am hoping you might be able to help me out by answering a few questions.

[1] Has "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis" in fact been published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics? The press release from Cambridge is not clear on this point.

If so, can you tell me the issue number or date of publication?

Or if not, do you know when or in which issue it will be published?

[2] Has the paper been published anywhere else?

If so, can you tell me where I can find it?

Or if not, would you be willing (and able) to provide a copy of the paper for review?


Thank you very much for your very important work and of course for any assistance you can provide.

I am not the only one who has attempted to contact Dr. Seffen without result.

He also failed to respond to this message

Dear Dr Keith Seffen,

Further to reading the following BBC article... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm,
I have been trying to obtain a copy of your findings which were reported as being published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I am particularly interested in the sources of information used, your methodology of any calculations and any assumptions you may have made.

Could you please provide a link to this information or possibly E-mail me the paper as I cannot locate it on the Journal of Engineering Mechanics website... http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/

Your assistance would be much appreciated

and this one:

Attn Dr Keith Seffen,

I understand that Mr Brian McHugh (Mechanical Engineer) and perhaps others have requested that you support your recent hypothesis which has been discussed on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm, and I would like to add my own weight behind this request, as there are many of us who would be very interested in examining your figures.

Of course, it must also be mentioned here that it would appear as if your hypothesis pertains to buildings which have possibly been the subject of hits by aircraft and subsequent fuel induced fires, which, of course, World Trade Centre 7 was not. However, my interpretation of your hypothesis may be in error as I have not examined your figures.

Although I am an accountant by profession, I have studied physics to university level, and am also in my final year with the Open University studying a degree in Mathematics and Computing, so I would study your figures with great interest, as indeed would many in the scientific community whose hypotheses and mathematics seem to be at odds with your own.

I shall be particularly interested in how you have dealt with the loss of mass and energy due to the vast amounts of concrete and other dust created and expelled as the buildings came down. In addition, if the steel supports offered what must have been virtually zero resistance to the floors falling from above, I am very interested in just how you must be explaining why they are not sticking 1,300 feet into the air. Furthermore, I shall be interested in your explanation as to how two of the buildings seemed to collapse from the top down, yet one (WTC7) collapsed from the bottom in a far more conventional way as is usual for buildings the subject of controlled demolitions and which we can see in numerous video clips.

Your early response to the request for your figures would be greatly appreciated.

and this one

Dear Dr Seffen

I have read with interest a report of your investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

How do you explain the following:

1 how the heat in a carbon-based fire could have reached the melting point of steel

2 why molten steel was present at ground zero after the collapse

3 why no steel-framed buildings and none of the buildings hit by aircraft, either before or since 9/11, have resulted in similar destruction of the steel framework, shearing beams, trusses and columns. (In each such case the steel framework has remained standing despite damage to other parts of the buildings)

4 why a downward force of floor collapse should have sheared vertical columns

5 why the Saloman Brothers' building, also known as World Trade Center Seven, collapsed in like manner to the twin towers, despite not having been hit by an aircraft

6 how you can describe these three collapses in a unique manner in one day as a "very ordinary thing to happen"?

and this one

Hi Keith,

I see that you have 'proved' that the total collapse of the South Tower in about 9 seconds is scientifically possible. I really look forward to reading your article.

To me it has always seemed that:

As the collapse was at 'free-fall' speed (near as damn it), all the available P.E. was being converted into K.E. as the tower fell......or did I misunderstand the first law of thermodynamics?

If this is true, and it obviously is.......where did the energy come from to pulverise almost the entire building into to dust before it hit the ground? We all saw this happening didn't we?

Come to that, if the building was pulverised as it fell what constituted the impacting mass that provided the successive 80+ collapses and further pulverisations that took place?

If the whole dust thing was a figment of our collective imaginations and fully rigid real floors fell onto lower floors in a pancake-style collapse how come the Law of Conservation of Momentum forgot to apply itself for this particular 9 seconds of history. Such a collapse could not possibly have taken place at free-fall speed, could it? The collapse would have become successively slower. Estimates I have seen of collapse times applying this universally applicable law vary between 30 and 55 seconds.

Is there some entirely new 'building in a state of shock' principle going on or something? Even if every steel support offered zero resistance to collapse the millisecond it came under the tiniest stress, it is still impossible to see how the 47 massive steel beams that constituted the core of the building were brought down.

Enough already.

It had better be good, Keith.

It would really horrible to see a person make himself an accessory to mass-murder by manufacturing fraudulent bollox designed to assist in the cover-up of a truly evil crime.

I'm sure Keith Seffen would appreciate a few emails and phone calls inquiring as to when and whether his paper will be available for peer review. His email address, as noted on his personal web page, is [email protected]. For those who prefer to phone him, the numbers are +44 (0) 1223 7 64137. To send him a fax, try +44 (0) 1223 3 32662.

Nothing At Stake But The Future Of Mankind

The importance of this issue can hardly be overemphasized.

The Global War on Terror and the emerging National Security State are predicated on the events of 9/11.

We don't have any money for anything anymore because of the vast expense of enhancing National Security, not to mention the additional vast expense of fighting the Global War On Terror. In truth, if not for these two enormous expenditures, wealthy Americans could have had an even more meaningful tax cut.

And on the other hand, as well as going nationally bankrupt, we don't have any rights anymore because if we did, our rights would be a threat to National Security.

The very phrase "National Security" has taken on a double meaning in these dark post-9/11 days. It no longer means "the safety and security of the entire nation and all the people living in it", if it ever meant such a thing.

By the Nixon era it had taken on its primary Bush-era connotation, namely "the continued tenure in office of the president and the continued tenure in the White House of his gang".

Nowadays, in yet another Orwellian degradation of the language, it also means "anything the president wants to do, especially if the people do not want it".

Thus we have unlimited warrantless wiretapping of a most egregious and illegal nature, and no hint that this surveillance program is stopping terrorism or even that it could have stopped the attacks of 9/11 had it been in place at the time -- on the contrary, we have seen many hints that this surveillance program was in place at the time and did nothing to prevent the attacks, nor was it ever designed to do so.

But the president claims this power -- and many others, such as the power to detain indefinitely without charge or hearing, much less trial; the power to decide what is torture and what is not, and therefore the legal cover to practice virtually any sort of inhuman abuse and still say "we don't torture"; the power to decide which laws are to be enforced and how; the power to decide which laws are unconstitutional; even the grandiose and perverse power to have anyone anywhere killed at his command -- and all this is based on the twin pillars of "National Security" and the "Global War On Terror".

We've killed at least a million people so far, and left millions more homeless -- many of them stateless! And the Global War On Terror, although the name continues to change, seems set to last forever. Half a dozen countries are now on the verge of being engulfed: I write often of Pakistan and others write even more often of Iran, and there's still Syria, and Lebanon, and Turkey, and of course the six-pointed star in the middle of it all.

There is so much going on that we would have trouble keeping it all straight even if we were getting the truth about everything from our government and the media, but of course we aren't. We're getting more lies to justify more wars, and more killing, and more suffering, and eventually it's bound to result in more blowback, more terrorism, and an even more expensive, and more restrictive, National Security state.

And all this is predicated on 9/11, or more specifically, it's all predicated on the official story of 9/11. What if, as many people believe, that story is false, and not only false but deliberately false, concocted and injected into the national narrative expressly in order to justify the National Security State as well as the Global War on Terror?

So ... Where's The Paper?

If Keith Seffen and the BBC and Cambridge and Ross Corotis and the JEM are all collaborating on such an obvious fraud as pretending there's a paper when there isn't, then the world should know about it, in my view.

If there is such a paper, then where is it? Has it been published or not? Is it scheduled to be published or not? Is it available for review? All these questions have been ignored. In other words, there's your answer.

If there is such a paper, then we should be able to see it and review it and decide on the basis of the math whether or not it makes sense, whether or not the collapse it describes is plausible, and equally important, whether or not the collapse it describes corresponds to what we know about the events of the day.

And if there is no paper, are we looking at accessories-after-the-fact in a case of mass murder?

Nearly two months ago, I knew nothing about the process by which scientific papers are published. Then I had a good long talk with my science adviser. He's a friend of long standing, with a PhD in Biology; he's had some papers published and he works in the Biology Department of a university where he knows a lot of other biologists who are having papers published, and he gave me some insight into the process.

Here's the gist of it: If a journal has accepted a paper for publication, it will tell the author either the issue number or the date of the issue in which the paper is to be published. Up until that point, there are no guarantees. The paper may have been submitted, it may be under consideration, it may have been rejected, it may have been sent back to the author for revision (and in that case it needs to be reviewed again after it is revised), and in none of these cases will a date of publication be established. How could it? The paper has to be satisfactory before it can be scheduled for publication.

So, if the paper has been published, when was it published and where is it? And if the paper is to be published, when will it be published? These are the basic questions to which both Dr. Seffen and Dr. Corotis chose not to respond.

It's a classic propaganda technique: tell the lie once and then never mention it again. Sometimes in politics this approach works well. But in science, if someone ignores relevant questions, the obvious implication is that he has no good answers.

In other words, in this case, we seem to be looking at accessories-after-the-fact. They may not want to deal with the questions, but the world deserves answers.

Ross Corotis:
email: [email protected]
ASCE journals
email: [email protected]

Keith Seffen:
email: [email protected]
phone: +44 (0) 1223 7 64137
fax: +44 (0) 1223 3 32662

~~~

UPDATE 1:
(November 8, 2007): We now have evidence that Dr. Seffen's paper has been written and is scheduled for publication.
WTC 'Collapse' Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February

UPDATE 2:
(November 9, 2007) And now we have the paper
Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"

Protecting Democracy : Hundreds Of Pakistani Lawyers And Activists Arrested As Clampdown Continues

The military clampdown on Pakistani politics continues. At least five hundred lawyers, human rights activists and political opposition members have been arrested. All independent news media are being suppressed. The government has declared the Constitution "in abeyance" until further notice, and it's all been done by a General-President in the name of protecting democracy.

The geometry of this cynical ploy is quite simple. There's a small band of radicals on one end and a small band of militarists on the other. They are connected in many ways. If properly aligned, such a combination can crush a huge secular progressive majority in the middle. And that's what's happening in Pakistan at the moment.

I've been having horrible internet problems and I would like to do more with this post but it doesn't seem likely ... in the meantime I'll give you what I've got:

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

About 500 opposition party workers, lawyers and human rights activists were arrested Sunday as the government of General Pervez Musharraf tried to consolidate its control after imposing emergency rule.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was under fire at home and abroad Sunday after declaring an indefinite state of emergency that the West is calling a blow to democracy.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Planned elections in Pakistan could be delayed by up to a year after President Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule, the country's PM says.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Pakistan's government on Sunday continued a nationwide crackdown on the political opposition, the media and the courts, one day after President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule and suspended the constitution in a bid to save his job.

Police throughout the country raided the homes of opposition party leaders and activists, arresting hundreds. Top lawyers were also taken into custody, and at the offices of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in the eastern city of Lahore, 70 activists were detained. Journalists covering the raid had their equipment confiscated by police, and were ordered off the premises.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

Pakistani police arrested opposition politicians, including the leader of exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's party, as part a crackdown following President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency, Reuters reported Sunday.

In a move that sparked outcries from political opponents and the international community on Saturday, Musharraf also replaced the chief justice of the country's Supreme Court and had authorities round up opposition figues, cut phone lines in the capital Islamabad and took all but state television off the air.

Emergency Restrictions

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

The order effectively suspends the country's constitution before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on Musharraf's future as president. The high court has been hearing constitutional arguments against his re-election last month.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Emergency Restrictions
Constitutional safeguards on life and liberty curtailed
Police get wide powers of arrest
Suspects can be denied access to lawyers
Freedom of movement restricted
Private TV stations taken off air
New rules curtail media coverage of suicide bombings or militant activity
Chief justice replaced, others made to swear oath of loyalty
Supreme Court banned from rescinding emergency order

Official Justifications

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Musharraf announced the emergency decree, under which the Constitution was suspended and most of the Supreme Court was dismissed, on state-run television just after midnight. In a 45-minute speech, the president said he had declared the emergency to limit terrorist attacks and "preserve the democratic transition that I initiated eight years back." He did not say how long the state of emergency would be maintained.

The general, dressed in civilian clothes, quoted the U.S. president Abraham Lincoln, citing his suspension of some rights during the American Civil War as justification for the state of emergency in Pakistan.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Musharraf made the declaration Saturday in reaction to what he said was judicial activism by the state's high court. Musharraf has been tussling with the Supreme Court since at least March, when he removed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, citing judicial misconduct.
...
Pakistani Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan said the move -- which suspends the constitution and expands Musharraf's powers -- was necessary because "things had gone totally haywire."

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Gen Musharraf says he declared the emergency to stop Pakistan "committing suicide", because the country was in a crisis caused by militant violence and an unruly judiciary

The moves came as the Supreme Court was due to rule on the legality of Gen Musharraf's October election victory.
...
In a TV address on Saturday evening, Gen Musharraf explained his decision, saying the current situation had forced him into making "some very painful decisions".
...
"Extremists are roaming around freely in the country, and they are not scared of law-enforcement agencies," the president said.

"Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

In a national address Saturday, Musharraf insisted his actions were necessary to curb a rise in extremism in Pakistan, as well as judicial paralysis.

"I suspect that Pakistan's sovereignty is in danger unless timely action is taken," said Musharraf, who was wearing civilian clothes and spoke firmly and calmly.

"Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization . Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."

Activists Arrested

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

About 500 opposition party workers, lawyers and human rights activists were arrested Sunday as the government of General Pervez Musharraf tried to consolidate its control after imposing emergency rule.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

As part of the state of emergency, the Pakistani government has a list of about 1,500 opposition figures, mostly activists and lawyers to be rounded up, according to police sources and witnesses.
...
The head of Pakistan's human rights commission, Asma Jahangir, said she, too, was under house arrest and that Musharraf "has lost his marbles."

Khan, the information minister, said the house arrests are "a very temporary measure" and were targeting "people who have been causing law and order situations."

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Rights have been suspended, media has been restricted and hundreds of people arrested under the emergency decree.

Mr Aziz said 400 to 500 "preventative arrests" had been made so far, and said the emergency, imposed by Gen Musharraf on Saturday, would last for "as long as is necessary".

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Up to 500 opposition activists had been arrested in the last 24 hours, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Sunday.

Media Restrictions

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

About a dozen privately run television news stations remained off the air, and international channels, including the BBC and CNN, were suspended. In the city of Lahore, police officers armed with tear gas tried to break up a meeting of regime opponents at the headquarters of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission. They took dozens of people away in police vans.
...
The director of the private television channel Aaj TV, Wamiq Zuberi, said a magistrate accompanied by five vans of gun-toting police officers showed up at the channel's studios here Saturday night. They wanted to confiscate the channel's outdoor broadcasting van, Zuberi said. But the magistrate did not have a warrant, and the workers at the studio stood their ground, forcing the officials to leave, Zuberi said.

Aziz, the prime minister, said Sunday that the government planned to work on "a code of conduct" for broadcasters.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Tough new media restrictions are controlling the news available throughout Pakistan: all non-state TV stations and some radio channels, including international services such as BBC World TV, have been taken off air.

Independent newspapers have been allowed to continue publishing, but Gen Musharraf's decree severely limits what they can report.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Independent television stations remained off the air Sunday, and Pakistani journalists said they were unsure when their broadcasts would be restored. One prominent news anchor, Kashif Abbasi, said the government was pressuring the stations to sign a new code of conduct that would impose severe restrictions on what the stations could report. Abbasi said journalists would resist the move. "Do we have a choice? We can't sit there and report, but not talk about the president, the prime minister, the government or its policies," he said.

The only televised news Sunday came from the state-run channel, which ran clips from Musharraf's speech to the nation Saturday night in which he blamed terrorists and activist judges for forcing him to declare emergency rule. State-run TV also broadcast a critical segment on media restrictions in arch-rival India.

Police / Security / Military

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Local newspapers and key opposition leader Benazir Bhutto accused Gen Musharraf of bringing in martial law without formally declaring it.

But Pakistan's attorney general said the prime minister and parliament remained in place and the civilian government would continue to function.
...
Small protests have started in the capital, Islamabad, where police and security forces are on the streets surrounding key sites.
...
After a calm start to Sunday, a few dozen people staged a brief protest near the parliament building in Islamabad before police moved in to break up the gathering.

Several people were dragged away and arrested, reports the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan, in the city.

More protests are expected throughout the rest of the day, he adds, with police appearing ready to use force against unauthorised demonstrations.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

The police presence in the capital, Islamabad, remained heavy Sunday, and an air of tense calm prevailed over much of the city.

Benazir Bhutto

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Bhutto spent Sunday at her residence in Karachi. Leaders of her party, the Pakistan People's Party, said she would fly to Islamabad to hold talks with other opposition parties about how to proceed. But Bhutto did not show up here.

In interviews with foreign television channels, Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan after years in exile in October with the backing of the United States, appealed for free and fair elections. But sympathizers to her cause said her options for influencing the situation appeared limited.

Organizing large protests under emergency rule, and after the bomb attack on her arrival procession Oct. 18 that killed 140 people, would be difficult, said Najem Sethi, the editor in chief of The Daily Times.

"Verbally she will be very critical," Sethi said. "But she is not going to participate in protests. She's going to make a token representation. Behind the scenes she will work with the government for elections as soon as possible."

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Ms Bhutto, who recently returned to Pakistan from self-imposed exile, flew back to Karachi from a trip abroad upon hearing news of Gen Musharraf's decision.

She confirmed that troops were not surrounding her Karachi home, contrary to some earlier reports, and laid out her demands for the holding free and fair elections.

"We the political parties are calling for the restoration of the constitution, and for the holding of the elections under an independent election commission," she told the BBC.

There is no word yet whether she plans to enter dialogue with the president or to lead opposition to his rule.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

In an interview with CBC News late Saturday from Karachi, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto accused Musharraf of taking Pakistan away from democracy and "turning the clock back towards dictatorship."

"If you really want to get rid of extremism, you have to get rid of dictatorship," Bhutto said. "It's an unfortunate day in our country's history."

Bhutto, who was in Dubai when Musharraf issued the order, recently ended eight years in exile and has been in talks with Musharraf's camp about countering Islamic extremism by coming together to form a possible pro-Western alliance after parliamentary elections, which were slated for January.
...
Bhutto, who held a press conference at her residence in Karachi after her arrival in Pakistan, said she would hold talks with other opposition parties to "build the domestic pressure" against Musharraf to reverse the decision and hold the elections on schedule.

Other Opposition

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Among the hundreds of people arrested since the declaration was Javed Hashmi, acting head of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League.

Gen Musharraf, he said as he was taken away, would pay a price for his decision to restrict freedoms.

"Musharraf's days are numbered. Time has come to end the political role of the army."

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Ahsan Iqbal, spokesman for an opposition party led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, said up to 1,000 activists from his party had been arrested, including top leaders. Iqbal said Musharraf was "guilty of treason" for suspending the constitution.

Responding to Secretary of State Rice's statement on reviewing aid to Pakistan, Sharif called for even more U.S. action.

"Just saying that we will review the aid is not enough. I think the Western countries, especially the United States of America, must condemn this in the strongest terms and must urge Musharraf to reverse all that he's done yesterday," Sharif said in a telephone interview with Sky News.

Sharif is in Saudi Arabia, after being arrested and deported there in September shortly after arriving in Pakistan from exile.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

In September, Sharif was deported only hours after he returned to his home country after seven years of exile after being ousted by Musharraf in a 1999 coup.

"Musharraf's days are numbered. Time has come to end the political role of the army," Reuters quoted Javed Hashmi, acting president of Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, as telling reporters before being whisked away by police in the central city of Multan.
...
Another opposition politician, former cricketer Imran Khan, told the BBC he had been placed under house arrest.

Lawyers

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Around the country, at least 80 lawyers were arrested in an apparent bid to head off demonstrations that lawyers' groups had planned for Monday.
...
A government spokesman, Tariq Aziz Khan, said the arrests of lawyers were "preventive measures" taken because of a "threat to future law and order."

In the spring, lawyers spearheaded opposition to Musharraf after he fired the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The Supreme Court later reinstated Chaudhry, who continued to irritate Musharraf. By the end of last week, the general seemed unsure that the Supreme Court would rule favorably on his re-election.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Pakistani lawyers announced they would strike on Monday in protest at the president's decision.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Asma Jahangir, a leading human rights attorney, reported in an e-mail that she had been ordered to stay confined to her home for 90 days. She called it ironic that that Musharraf "had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires."

Opposition groups did not mass any large protests on Sunday, but they vowed to do so later in the week.

"Lawyers and civil society will challenge the government," Jahangir wrote, "and the scene is likely to get uglier."

Supreme Court

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Musharraf accused the Supreme Court of releasing 61 men who he said were under investigation for terrorist activities. "Judicial activism," he said, had demoralized the security forces, hurt the fight against terrorism and slowed the spread of democracy. "Obstacles are being created in the way of democratic process," he said, "I think for vested, personal interests, against the interest of the country."
...
Musharraf acted just days before the Supreme Court was due to decide on the legality of his re-election on Oct. 6.

Among the dozens of lawyers arrested was the president of the Supreme Court bar association, Aitzaz Ahsan, who has opposed Musharraf in legal arguments and in political protests, said Ayesha Tammy Haq, an Islamabad lawyer.

"If you want to take the country away from Talibanization, these are the people who can do it, the secular middle class," Haq said as she waited Sunday at the Adiala jail in Rawalpindi to see Ahsan.
...
Under the emergency declaration, the Supreme Court justices were ordered to take an oath to abide by a "provisional constitutional order" that replaces the country's existing Constitution. Seven justices rejected the order Saturday night, according to an aide to Chaudhry.

Hours later, the state-run news media reported that three justices generally seen as supporting Musharraf had taken an oath to uphold the emergency measure. And it was announced that Chaudhry had been replaced by a pro-government member of the Supreme Court bench, Abdul Hamid Doger, as chief justice.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

The Supreme Court -- which reinstated Chaudhry in July in what many called a political blow to Musharraf -- was amid hearing arguments from opposition leaders who said that Musharraf's victory in the October elections should be overturned because Musharraf was not eligible to serve a third term while heading the country's military.
...
Chaudhry is one of seven Supreme Court judges placed under house arrest after the court declared Musharraf's state of emergency illegal under the constitution.

Shortly after the court ruling, troops went to Chaudhry's office and told him he was fired, the judge's office said. Massive protests ensued after Chaudhry was removed from the bench earlier this year.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Following the announcement of emergency rule, the country's chief justice was replaced and the Supreme Court surrounded by troops.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and eight other judges refused to endorse the emergency order, declaring it unconstitutional, resulting in Mr Chaudhry's dismissal.

The Supreme Court was to decide whether Gen Musharraf was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

Fears were growing in the government that the court could rule against Gen Musharraf.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

At the residence of the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, hundreds of security officers kept visitors away. Chaudhry was fired by Musharraf on Saturday, along with at least six others Supreme Court judges.

Out of 17 judges on the bench, five agreed to take an oath to uphold Musharraf's new provisional constitution. The government pressured several others Sunday to sign the oath, or lose their jobs.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

Seven of the 18 Supreme Court judges immediately condemned the emergency measures.

"Under the constitutional order, judges will have to swear allegiance to the emergency powers," freelance journalist Graham Usher told CBC News. "Any judge who does not do that can be dismissed."

Justice Hameed Dogar replaced Iftekhar Chaudhry as the country's chief justice. Musharraf tried to remove Chaudhry from the bench in March over alleged abuse of authority, but the court declared the suspension illegal and reinstated him in July after a series of street protests.

Chaudhry has been outspoken in defending the independence of the judiciary.

The Future Of Democracy

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Sunday at a news conference that new parliamentary elections, which had been expected in January, could be "up to a year" away. He said that as many as 500 opposition activists had been arrested nationwide.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was under fire at home and abroad Sunday after declaring an indefinite state of emergency that the West is calling a blow to democracy.
...
[Information Minister Tariq Azim] Khan said parliamentary elections slated for January have been postponed indefinitely, but Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said later no such decision had been made.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Shaukat Aziz told a news conference that the government remained committed to the democratic process.

But he said parliament might change the date of elections planned for January, and gave no end date for the emergency.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

[Prime Minister Shaukat] Aziz said the extraordinary measures would remain in place "as long as it is necessary." Aziz said parliamentary elections could be postponed up to a year, but no decision has been made regarding a delay.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

It is not known whether the state of emergency will delay or cancel the elections.

American Reactions

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

The U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, joining other foreign governments in expressing concern about Pakistan's decision to suspend its Constitution, said Washington was reviewing billions of dollars in aid to the country, The Associated Press reported. Britain also said it was examining its aid package.
...
Musharraf summoned foreign diplomats, including the U.S. ambassador, Anne Patterson, to a meeting Sunday to explain the reasons for his action, according to diplomats.

The emergency rule came into force less than 24 hours after Musharraf met here with the senior U.S. military commander in the region, Admiral William Fallon, who warned the Pakistani leader that U.S. military assistance would be in jeopardy if he introduced martial law, diplomats said.

Soon after Musharraf's emergency decree, Washington officials said it was unlikely that the military aid would be cut.
...
Rice, speaking to reporters in Jerusalem on Sunday, also urged Musharraf to call elections and repeated U.S. displeasure at emergency rule, which she advised against in two telephone calls to him on Wednesday, news agencies reported.

"Obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid, in part because we have to see what may be triggered by certain statutes," Rice said.

The United States has provided about $11 billion to Pakistan since 2001, when Musharraf made a strategic shift to be an ally with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice said Washington would review its aid in light of the new emergency measures, though the Pentagon said earlier that the emergency rule would not affect its military support to Pakistan.

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Rice told reporters traveling with her in the Middle East. "We just have to review the situation."

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

"It is in the best interest of Pakistan and in the best interest of the Pakistani people for there to be a prompt return to a constitutional course, for there to be an affirmation that elections will be held for a new parliament, and for all parties to act with restraint in what is obviously a very difficult situation," she said.

Later in the day, Rice said the U.S. would review its financial aid package to Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror. She conceded the matter would be complicated because much of the aid goes to counterterrorism.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Washington is reviewing the aid which it gives to Pakistan in the wake of Gen Musharraf's decision.

"Obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid, in part because we have to see what may be triggered by certain statutes," Ms Rice said.

In recent years Gen Musharraf has been a key ally in Washington's war on terror and has received about $10bn in aid since 2001.

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Ms Rice said, adding that that complicated the issue.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday that the United States would review its $150 million a month assistance program to Pakistan in response to Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

"The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

However, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Musharraf's declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, which Morrell called "a very important ally in the war on terror."

Other Foreign Reactions

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the 27-nation European Union, also implored Musharraf to keep the January elections on track. Solana told The Associated Press he realizes Pakistan is facing difficulties in its political and security situations, but "any deviation from the general democratic process cannot be a solution."

Solana, in a statement, urged Musharraf "to abide by the rule of law, notably to respect the boundaries of the constitution" and asked that political parties show "restraint to facilitate a quick return to normalcy."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also expressed concerns about the state of emergency, saying Pakistan's future "rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism."

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

The international advocacy group Human Rights Watch issued a statement condemning the move as "an appalling attack on human rights defenders."

Other Pakistani Reactions

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Pakistanis reacted to the country's turmoil Sunday with a mixture of anger and apathy, according to AP.

Said factory worker Faisal Sayed, "Pakistan is bad because of one person: Musharraf. He has ruined our country."

But day laborer Togul Khan, 38, had a more cynical outlook as he waited for work on an Islamabad street corner, AP reported.

"What's the point of talking about this?" he asked. "The politicians have lifted Pakistan into the sky and spun it round before bringing it crashing down to earth -- but nothing will change for us."

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Near the Supreme Court, a small group of Pakistanis gathered in hopes of starting a rally against Musharraf. But police ordered the crowd to disperse, citing a ban on public gatherings of more than three people in one place.

"We're in despair and we don't know what to do," said Sofia Shakil, an Islamabad resident. "Just when things looked like they couldn't get any worse . . . "

Later in the afternoon, a group of several dozen protesters shouting "We want democracy now!" attempted to march to Chaudhry's house. But the police blocked their path, and began to make arrests.

"We don't need martial law imposed on us," said Laila Ashraf, a protester. "We need to assert our rights."

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

Ottawa officially condemned the crackdown urged its government to reinstate judges and allow free elections.

In a statement released Saturday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier called for all sides to refrain from violence and respect human rights. The Foreign Affairs Department also issued an official travel warning advising Canadians against all travel to Pakistan.

Taliban / al Qaeda

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

the general tailored his decree to emphasize the necessity of continuing the fight against Islamic extremists sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.