# And so it Begins....



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 5, 2003)

Orwells future is coming.

http://www.raisethefist.com/



> Your Rights Online: Linking Dangerously
> Posted by michael on Tuesday August 05, @04:00PM
> from the linking-la-vida-loca dept.
> indole writes "Some /.'ers might remember the story of Sherman Austin, a Californina native who created the "anarchy" website raisethefist.com. Besides posting links to bomb-making instructions, the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Well, approximately 18 months later Sherman Austin, now age 20, has been sentenced to 1 year in federal prison. According to Austin, 'he took a plea bargain because he feared his case was eligible for a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to his sentence.' Doubleplusungood."



Slashdot stories:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/08/05/1639226.shtml?tid=153&tid=99

Reading through it, its insane.  
For example, as part of his sentencing:


> "(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.)"


Well, that means he can't associate with anyone running for office, or involved in the normal political process.

*Please note: I do not advocate violence, building bomb, assassinations, harm to those in power other than loss of job.  It is the abuses of power I indicate here, not support for the social or political beliefs or actions of Mr. Austin.*

The "Patriot Act" passed in the night while our elected officials cowered in terror is only now coming to light as a huge mistake.  Only now, 2 years later, are they seeking ways to return to us some of the safeguards they in their panic stripped away.

Rights lost:
Excerpt:





> 1ST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
>  The Patriot Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism, so many domestic groups that engage in certain types
> of civil disobedience could very well find themselves labeled as terrorists.
>  The Government may now prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they reveal that the government requested
> ...


Full listing is at: 
http://www.nycbordc.org/docs/NYCBORDC_Eroding_Liberty_030611.pdf

Links to reports of abuses: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml
http://www.fearbush.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=2069&
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/opin-top0725-3393.html
Also do a search on google for "patriot act abuses". It turned up over 22,000 links.

Thankfully, some places already see the treat for what is is, and are acting.  I salute these brave and bold leaders, who literally risk being declared an 'enemy of the state' for doing so.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html



> "Remember, fascism and a police state doesn't come all at once, it comes piece by piece. How far will we allow it go until we are all locked up in concentration camps."



Hopefully this doesnt make those who are currently in power come in the night.  This year, get off your asses and really look at the issues, and then, vote with your concious.  Don't just go 'party line'.  Vote for the person who really fits what you want.  And, dont just read the paper and watch the commercials, really research the issues and where folks really stand on em.  You've got a PC and such.  So, use em. 

Otherwise, someday, you may not be able to.


Some additional reading:
Ashcroft, the PATRIOT ACT & Lost American Freedoms
http://www.againstbombing.com/Ashcroftlostfreedoms.htm

Operation Atlas
http://www.operationatlas.150m.com/


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 5, 2003)

What is that saying?...
Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither freedom or security.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *What is that saying?...
> Those who would give up freedom for security, deserve neither freedom or security. *



:cheers:

Ben Franklin I believe said it, though I've also seen it atributed to Thomas Jefferson.  Now these are 2 guys who would most likely be in deep **** if they were around today.


Add to the above:
YOU Might Be a Terrorist: http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds82.html

Found this:


> Who gave your rights away?
> CategoryDebate) Created12/4/2001 9:59:00 PM) Viewed (377 times)
> Who gave your rights away? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
> 
> ...



This shits scary, more so than the latest slasher flick, cuz its true.  I don't agree with the writer 100%, but just enough.

:soapbox:


----------



## OULobo (Aug 6, 2003)

I hear you all the way on this one Kaith. I read this article just today on a different website. I think its rediculous. The fact the judge decided to push up the sentance is crazy. The deal was made, all he's supposed to do is okay it. Its an example of the stuff the Patriot Act and the current terrorism paranoia have allowed the government to get away with. Everyday I get a little closer to sending a check to the ACLU. Starting to sound like Iraq isn't the only place that is in need of a regime change. 

Hold on there's a knock at the door. . . . . . . . .Mr. OULobo will no longer be able to access this site due to being taken into custody to an unspecified location to await trial for an undisclosed crime at a possible date sometime in the future. Thank you for your cooperation, carry on.


----------



## Ender (Aug 6, 2003)

Sounds like chicken little is running rampant...always check who the author is, what their agenda is...and most of all: think and read. download the "Patriot Act", read it, then give an opinion. one thing that really bothers me is when people let writers and columnists do thier thinking for them.

It could very well lead to abuses of freedom. But I am not going to let some "group or organization" lead me down their agenda path. Now if someone here has read it and give an informed opinion, I can respect that. But don't be a sheep.


----------



## redfang (Aug 6, 2003)

I noticed that Poindexter is resigning, leading several democratic legislators to immediately begin challenginging going ahead with the TIA project.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 6, 2003)

Which chicken you talkin 'bout? Do you mean the idea the government is shamlessly killing civil liberties to satiate a hysterical public, or do you mean the people calling foul when some judge excercises his own personal bias and judgment instead just adding guidence to the already approved and administered laws passed by the citizens?

Its not the Act itself that I have a problem with, its the abuses that already have come from the flawed interpretation of the Act. I agree with checking sources and the motivations of the writers, but there have been quite a few articles in quite a few papers across the country, both conservative and liberal tilted,  about how Mr. Ashcroft and the Justice Department are breaking their own rules. To discount all the articles and the writers as biased or following a personal or party line agenda sounds a little too conspiracyish for even me.


----------



## Ender (Aug 6, 2003)

There are ghosts and goblins abound in the police, FBI, CIA, INS, the atty generals office. abuses in all these agencies have been going on for decades going back to RFK.  I just have trouble with people who post an article and say "SEE!!???..this is whats happening".....keep the rhetoric to themselves and give me facts. Cuz so far all we've seen are some writers perception or opinion.
*shrug.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 6, 2003)

I catch your point about long standing corruption, but there is no denial or coverup here. They are being blatant and public. This is arrogant abuse.

I'll give an example that has been reported by multiple sources and especially ticks me off. Atorney(sp) General John Ashcroft told a federal judge that the judge had no authority to tell him to release a prisoner. The case wouldn't have even come to light if the prisoner hadn't of smuggled out a note about his whereabouts to a relative who got him a lawyer. In the case Ashcroft told the judge that he couldn't disclose why the prisoner was held or where he was being transfered to because it was a matter of national security. FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARANCE. When Ashcroft lost the case and was ordered to release the prisoner, he told the judge he didn't have to abide by the ruling and walked out. This is fact not opinion or rhetoric. If you want I'm sure I can find some records of the matter, somewhere online. He knows he can't be the law, so he thinks he's above it. That is horrible. If I were the judge I would've held Ashcroft in contempt and custody until he released the prisoner. Ballsy, but necessary.

Sorry for the rant, it's not directed at you, but this kind of arrogant disregard of the law in front of the public makes me wonder how anyone is expected to follow the rule of law when our top gov. officials flaunt it openly and blatantly. 

I think if the facts are straight it is important to stand up and say "See. . .This is happening!". Vigilancy is necessary in any country where the people expect to hold any power. 

Can I get an AMEN! . . . .I mean power to the people. . . .I mean. . ugh. . .nevermind.


----------



## Ender (Aug 6, 2003)

Agreed, if corruption can be proven and is uncovered, by all means, do what is necessary to stop it. My other point is sometimes the outcry is politically motivated. For example, where was the outcry of abuse when Clinton had many of his "enemies" audited by the IRS? or when he unethically used FBI files to retaliate against these same people? these abuses were also blatant and arrogant. if these corruptions are true, weed them out no matter who it is, not just because some politcal group has an agenda. JMO


----------



## OULobo (Aug 6, 2003)

Yeah, power is tempting and profitable I guess. Look what happens to martial arts organizations. I have yet to find enough politicians I trust to count on my fingers. Very few and very far inbetween.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2003)

The abuse of power by -anyone- is wrong.  From the local beat cop who uses his lights so he can avoid waiting at the red light, all the way up to coruption in the White House.

Like I said earlier, I don't agree 100% with what these writers wrote, but I agree with enough to justify pointing to em, and the odd quote.  I've done my reading, and haven't been pointed to anything to refute this info.   Sadly, I lack the legal background to fully understand certain laws.  My question here is, isn't that in itself wrong?  Shouldn't law be in plain language so us common folk have a chance at understanding it?

Personally, I'd rather see Jesse Ventura in the White House than -any- of those either currently in there, or running from the "big 2".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 18, 2003)

Ya know what--I mean, beyond the fact that somebody's got Clinton confused with Nixon (illegally buried in his mom's back-yard in Yorba Linda, which is Hunter S. Thompson pointed out is beautifully consonant with Dick's entire political career)--and beyond Franklin ("those who will trade their Liberty for a little Security..."), I'll tell you what crap ticks me off about the laughably-titled Patriot Act: allowing the FBI to pull library records, and forbidding librarians to so much as tell you that those clowns have been fiddling with your records. 

I don't give a damn about the big issues, in this case. I know libraries, and I know readers and librarians, almost certainly better than anybody else on these forums--and I'm telling you, this is wrong. And the folks who keep telling us that we should be able to recognize moral right without a lot of hoity-toity analysis should damn well know that this is just plain wrong.

Shame on anybody--anybody at all--who starts telling us what we can and cannot read. Shame on anybody--anybody at all--who quotes high-minded crap to justify censorship. And, the hell with anybody who uses the fantasy--because it is a fantasy--to justify letting the likes of Condoleeza Rice (who, I now discover, has an OIL TANKER named after her by a past employer) and Thornburgh have the slightest possibility of checking up on what anybody is reading.

You think this'll make you safer? Piffle. 

It's none of their beeswax, and I am astonished that this needs to be explained to conservatives. Barry Goldwater would have been screaming his head off about this nonsense.

PS--Sorry in advance. I realize that I put this rather strongly. But I have loved books since I was four years old--in a sense, I've spent my life with 'em--and I say, twelve whacks with a copy of Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," to anyone who attacks libraries, tries to make librarians cops,  and fools with our rights to read.

And oh yeah--the right to read was hard won, in this country and across the world. it pisses me off to read folks talking about giving this right back.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2003)

I think George Carlin put it best:



> As far as I'm concerned, all of this airport security--the cameras, the questions, the screening, the searches--is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can **** with you any time they want, as long as you're willing to put up with it. Which means, of course, any time they want. Because that's the way Americans are now. They're always willing to trade away a little of their freedom for the feeling, the illusion--of security.



He said this as part of one of his little rants back in 1999.... Post 9/11 the full thing does come off rather in poor taste... however, many of the things he brought up were errilly prophetic.

There are still over 100 individuals who were 'collected' in September 2001 in custody.  They haven't been charged. They have no contect with their families, friends, or lawyers.  

Does no one else think its wrong that our government is full of individuals who made their fortunes off the oil industry, who have -tankers- names after them, who were involved in Enron and other major scandles, who -lied- to the American people about WMD, who are now responsible for determining if the oil companies have been raping us at the pump this past summer?

Gee, lets ask Hitler if his government did anything wrong.  

I'm sure sending some cheep gov. muscle to intimidate the 60 yr old woman at my local library to find out if I read a book on explosives is really gonna help us fix the fact that all -50- fn states are bankrupt and we're on the highway to hell while those in charge laugh their rich asses off.

I just hope the next coup doesn't require more innocent men, women and children to die like the last one.  God Bless America - It needs Divine Help if its gonna pull outta this death spiral.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

> allowing the FBI to pull library records, and forbidding librarians to so much as tell you that those clowns have been fiddling with your records.



Libraries generally do not keep detailed records of your borrowing history after you return what you've borrowed.  They don't have the space, the time, or the inclination to do so.  Libraries keep records only of the materials you have checked out but have not returned, to my understanding.


----------



## MountainSage (Sep 19, 2003)

I with you guy all the way, yet you do realize this is a academic arguement.  We have allow the destruction of our rights to a point that substancial change can not and will not occur in any of our lifetimes.  We are now force to let the situation take its course to it's end, good or bad.  I also do not approve of revolutionary type action, yet I am hard pressed to see any other solution to the present situation.  In a warp sort of way, the neo-nazi and group like them are correct.  I find that if you are able to remove the rhetoric and moronic statement of these type of groups, there is a grain of fact to their general premise.

Mountainsage


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

Sorry, no on both counts--but thanks for not yelling back at me--this stuff pisses me off.

First off, most libraries now use computers to keep track of circulation. And the "Patriot Act," would apparently require librarians to START keeping complete records--yet another of what we in the academic game call those, "unfunded mandates," at which these clowns are so good.

As for the "destroying the village a little in order to save it argument," well, the general theoretical point it--ANY time you find yerself agreeing with nut groups, even a little (and I've done it too), it is time to go soak your head in ice water until the feeling goes away. Their "good" ideas are inextricably entwined with their "bad" ideas--and the real question for analysis would be, "Why is it that good people find themselves sharing ideas with the likes of George Lincoln Rockwell and the John Birch Society," fortunately both pretty much defunct.

The particular point--it's a joke to think that this will make us safer. It's simply part of what's repeatedly been identified as the militarization of American society. Time to dig out Sinclair Lewis again, I think--because we're talking about letting the Babbitts, the Gantrys run loose--and that's what they are you know. Rotary Club fascists, discussing sending the FBI (and I will bet a shiny new quarter that if you ask the agents who get sent to do this nonsense, you'd find out fast just how worthless it is) to check up on us troublemakers over Kona coffee and lemon bundt cake.

I will also bet a shiny new quarter that if you actually get into the heads of Coulter, Rice, Thornburgh, and the rest of these putzes, they are at least as interested in investigating the naysayers here at home as they are in scoping out those evil terrorists who, even now, are tunnelling through our libraries looking for the dirty parts.

I'm not that old, but I've seen this crap before. It's unAmerican nonsense, and deserves the big intellectual horselaugh.


----------



## RanaHarmamelda (Sep 19, 2003)

This is...unfortunate. And extremely so. 

Mostly because, it leads me to some disturbing dichotimies --

I'm not a fan of violence. It should be the last resort. As such, a violent revolution or overturning of any government should be done only when ABSOLUTELY necessary. Much better to change the system from within.

But what happens when you can not do so? When you reach a stage where the government in power has made it impossible for people to enact change from within, without violence?

I do not think we are there yet, but I think we are close. The current government does not tolerate dissent very well, and I think that some, if not most, of the legislation being put through  which gives expanded power to the government has a less than perfect motive -- I think it is there to keep those in power in power -- to perpetuate the system.

Truth be told, our Constitution was created so that we would not have to ever violently overthrow the government -- there should be a revolution every 4 years or so.  It's called voting.

But that hasn't been working, has it?

I think we could still do a non-violent revolution -- a massive change in the government. We'd just have to get up, and vote every single democrat and republican out of office. Get rid of the 2-party oligarchal system we currently have. It's still possible.

But what happens when, in the backlash against his mistakes, America votes unilformily democrat in the next election? Do you think they will work hard to release power gained by the current admisitration? Or do you think they will convienently not be able to pass any such resolutions through?

It's disturbing. Especially since I do not trust peopl einpower.

*laugh8 Course, I'm also slightly paranoidal about government. I've read 1984, Farenheit 451, and others far too often. 

Still...if it comes to the point where we need a revolution, could it happen non-violently? Could it even happen violently? Or are we approaching the stage of a self-perpetuating system?

I should stop now.

This disturbs me. I disturb myself.

:soapbox:


----------



## liangzhicheng (Sep 19, 2003)

> I think we could still do a non-violent revolution -- a massive change in the government. We'd just have to get up, and vote every single democrat and republican out of office. Get rid of the 2-party oligarchal system we currently have. It's still possible.



That's an interesting idea.  How would we go about getting a majority of the people to vote outside of party lines?  Is there anyone worth voting for?


----------



## OULobo (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by liangzhicheng _
> *That's an interesting idea.  How would we go about getting a majority of the people to vote outside of party lines?  Is there anyone worth voting for? *



Does it matter? Our votes don't elect the Pres. They just give an idea of who the citizen think should go in (and the illusion that we have some real power in the system).


----------



## liangzhicheng (Sep 19, 2003)

Yeah...the electoral college.



> On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
> 
> Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
> 
> http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm



Theoretically, our votes count...theoretically...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2003)

I know someone who has been saying for years that there will be a revolution in this country.  I disagree.  I believe that most Americans are clueless, dumb and happily so.  Lok at how many believe Sadam was responsible for 9/11.  Hell, Most folks think theres only 2 parties and you must vote party lines.

Thats BS.

The amount of voters has been steadily declining.  The lack of interest in the political process is what has allowed these criminals to stage their coup and take possetion of -our- govenment.  Only by the power of the true majority will they ever be thrown down.  

Browne got about 400,000 votes in the last presidential election.  Yes, thats a far cry from the millions that Tush and Bore got, but its still a telling number.  Perot I believe topped the million vote mark on his first campaign, but didn't do as well the 2nd time around.

My recomendation is that people get off their asses, really look at the issues and then cast their vote for whoever is really pushing what they want.  Stop voting the 'party line'.  

"But I'm just throwing it away cuz they cant win" is what I hear.  I say, shut up dumb-***.  It -does- count.  As those numbers of so called 'throw away' votes climb, it will send a message to those in power.  As the numbers increase eventually, we will retake our government 1 vote, 1 seat and 1 state at a time.

Like it or not, we are at war...and if we fail to answer the call, we will simply be crushed in the iron grip of tyranny that now is at our throats.

- "Right to Remain Silent" revolked
- "Requirement for a court oked search warrent" revolked
- "Right to a fair and speedy trial" revolked
- "Right to an attorny revolked
- "Right to Privacy" revolked
- "Right to Free Speech" being revolked

How many more rights must we lose before we wake up?  The 'President" may be George Bush, but the government is by George Orwell.  

Welcome to 1984.

Sleep

Sleep

Sleep

Sleep

Sleep

Wake up...because it may not yet be too late.

:soapbox:


----------



## RanaHarmamelda (Sep 19, 2003)

Kaith Rustaz:

Amen.


----------



## MountainSage (Sep 19, 2003)

kaith, look from a less extreme position on the issue of splinter groups have a few good ideas.  I live in Oregon so neo-nazi are familiar to me, so I use them as my example.  A radical "cause" doesn't mean that a person has no good ideas, just that there wrapped in a lot of other crap.  I believe in their own neanderthal ways these group were warning us a long time ago that this very situation ways coming and they were correct.  When there is an increase number of splinter groups, I think it show there are many people at the end of their rope with the situation and are now let go of the rope altogether.  Got to remember I come from shoot first, ask question later intermountain region of the west.

Mountainsage


"Even a clock is right twice per day"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

Oh, canaries in the coal mine. Makes sense.

For anybody on this thread who has posted in favor of the Pat. Act--here's a concept for you. If I understand correctly, under the Act, everybody on this Forum who has posted has opened themselves up to investigation at the whim of some (probably unelected) bureaucrat. 

Sweet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2003)

I love my country.  Unfortunately, for the last 2 years I've been more afraid of it than I can remember.

I never care if anyone agrees with my political leanings. (Life would be so much less interesting if that happened).  My goals to get people to think for themselves, and really look at the issue for themselves, not to just depend on a 30 second sound byte from their chosen partys fair-haired boy.

I've voted Liberal, Conservative, Democrat and Republican, based on who was claiming to meet what I wanted.

The problem is, with about 60-70% of folks having let go the rope, we're all getting rope burn on our necks as those who shouldn't be allowed in power, walk right in.

We need more elected leaders from these 'alternative' parties...for too long, the 'big 2' have dominated.  Hell, I almost hope the porn star gets elected in California....she's got some interesting ideas that could really kickstart things.  Unfortunately, most people focus on the porn, and I also fear its only a PR stunt.  

Just remember - I voted for Granpa Munster for Gov. of NY.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 19, 2003)

Preach on Brother Kath. . . preach on. You got my vote.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Oh, canaries in the coal mine. Makes sense.
> 
> For anybody on this thread who has posted in favor of the Pat. Act--here's a concept for you. If I understand correctly, under the Act, everybody on this Forum who has posted has opened themselves up to investigation at the whim of some (probably unelected) bureaucrat.
> ...



That about sums it up.  Because we are daring to question, we can now be declared an 'enemy combatant', whisked away in the dead of night, locked up for eternity, and no longer have -any- rights.

If you think I'm exagerating, ask the over 100 people still imprisioned since 9/11 who have not had a single charge levied, yet are not allowed contaact with the outside world.  Or, ask Kevin Mitnick who spent several years in custody without a conviction or even a trial. 

See:
http://www.freekevin.com/


----------



## Nightingale (Sep 19, 2003)

I've read the "Patriot Act."  

Stephen King could take a few lessons from its authors, because it is honestly the most frightening thing I have ever read.


----------



## RanaHarmamelda (Sep 19, 2003)

Found this when logging out of my hotmail account.

Take it with a grain of salt, but still -- it highlights the unforeseen ( I hope) far-reaching effects of the PATRIOT act. It also makes me glad I have a thoroughly English last name.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/P59113.asp

Peace,
Me


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2003)

In the last few years more information on what the government is doing has been classified than any previous period..

I found this....its interesting...

===
Powerful leaders often conceal historical record in order to promote his agenda

By EDWARD CUDDY 
Special to The News
9/14/2003  


"Associated Press
After Daniel Ellsberg unleashed the Pentagon Papers, an enraged President Richard Nixon sent former CIA agents to dig up dirt on him, triggering a train of actions that led to Watergate and Nixon's impeachment."

The idea is as old as America: Government records, said Thomas Jefferson, should be available to the people, not simply preserved "by vaults and locks which fence them from the public eye and use." 
History is important. Important enough for powerful men to repress it and for others to risk life and freedom to reveal it. Today, President Bush is emerging as the nation's leading exponent of historical secrecy, keeping Americans from seeing important evidence about how their government has acted, and why. 

"Every worst tendency toward secrecy has come out of the woodwork of this administration," said Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives. It simply doesn't "understand the value of openness." 

Why is historical secrecy, especially when used as a cover for deception, so destructive? Because it can lead to disastrous policies and an erosion of our government's credibility. 

Critics have faulted Bush for promoting his Iraqi war policy with false or exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. But if the president has not been totally candid, he is just one in a long line of leaders who has distorted the historical record to justify his policies. 

"The rewriting and distortion of history - as in all wartime regimes - is crucial," wrote Chris Hedges, a specialist in wartime psychology. The Cuban missile crisis, in 1962, for example, was arguably President John F. Kennedy's finest hour, a brilliant display of skilled diplomacy that defused the most dangerous crisis of the Cold War. But his rousing message to the American people was steeped in deception. 

The nuclear missiles installed in Cuba, he fumed, posed a "reckless and provocative threat to world peace" by the USSR in its march toward "world domination." And while the missiles did pose an increased threat to the United States, Washington had already targeted Russian cities with nuclear missiles at the Soviet-Turkish border - an inconvenient fact that JFK conveniently ignored. 

American history "demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate . . . other nations or impose our system upon its people," JFK boasted. 

But in the previous decade, the United States had overthrown elected governments in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), replacing them with pro-American regimes. Moreover, it had assaulted Cuba repeatedly: the Bay of Pigs invasion, crippling economic sanctions, commando raids and CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. 

The selective historical amnesia practiced by Kennedy is a standard mechanism among nations. For 70 years, the Soviet Union's brutal history was so repressed that when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev freed writers to publicize their real past, there was so much confusion that schools had to cancel the history exams. 

Since 1915, the Turks have successfully denied their genocidal violence when they drove 2 million Armenians into the Syrian desert to die. Japan still infuriates its neighbors by denying its World War II atrocities, a story so gruesome that when I assigned Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" to students, I allowed them to skip over its most graphic passages. 

"Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past." George Orwell's famous dictum was artfully demonstrated recently when Bush fanned the flames of war by emphasizing the links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida terrorists. 

Actually, Iraq and al-Qaida had a history of mutual hatred, and the CIA doubted their collaboration. Critics warned that attacking Iraq would divert critical resources from the real war on terrorism. But Bush persisted, falsely but successfully associating Iraq with the 9/11 atrocities, spiking fears that Saddam would supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction, despite their enmity. A majority of Americans were persuaded that the threat posed by Saddam justified America's pre-emptive war against Iraq. 

The president, indeed, liberated the Iraqi people from a vicious dictatorship - no mean achievement. But it was fear, primed by deception, that mainly rallied Americans to battle. 

Powerful leaders manipulate history not only by twisting the facts but by concealing the evidence - especially the official records in musty archives around the world, the lifeblood of historians. The perennial battle over access, the flash point between those seeking the truth and those trying to hide it, constitutes one of the most crucial chapters in the history of history. 

Heated controversies over British policies leading to World War II, for example, remain in dispute because documents are sealed until sometime later this century. After decades of ironclad secrecy enveloping Soviet archives, the collapse of the USSR came as a godsend for scholars, opening a gold mine of historical documents and providing new insights into the Cold War. 

Historians salivate over the magnificent Vatican archives - "25 miles of shelved documents" covering more than a thousand years. But specialists in the 20th century remain frustrated over the 75-year rule keeping the records closed for momentous events going back beyond the rise of Adolf Hitler. Especially galling is the "Vatican's unwillingness to open its records" for Jewish groups seeking evidence of their assets looted by the Nazis to validate claims for compensation, wrote John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter. 

Sometimes the struggle turns vicious. On April 24, 1998, Guatemala's Bishop Juan Gerardi Conedera publicized his Historic Memory Project, documenting the 36-year reign of terror under the country's military regime. Two days later, he was bludgeoned to death on orders from the military. He was murdered, observed a Guatemalan nun, because he wanted the truth to emerge, "things which powerful people wanted left unseen. . . ." 

For sheer drama, it's hard to top the Daniel Ellsberg story - his conversion from Pentagon hawk to the rebel whistle-blower who unleashed the Pentagon Papers, a history of the steps leading to the Vietnam War. Working in President Lyndon Johnson's Defense Department, Ellsberg experienced firsthand its pervasive deception. He once filled a rush order for "six alternate lies" for Secretary Robert McNamara's press conference. 

But those lies were small potatoes compared to Ellsberg's discovery three years later as a researcher on McNamara's Vietnam history project. Poring over documents from the 1950s, Ellsberg was appalled at what he was reading: President Dwight Eisenhower's decisions to "overturn" the Geneva Accords, cancel Vietnam's 1956 elections and prop up Ngo Dinh Diem's "police state." All of those actions flatly contradicted the blatant falsehoods that, for all his Harvard education, had shaped Ellsberg's pro-war views. 

By then, Vietnam had become a hellhole, devastating young Americans by the thousands and Vietnamese by the millions. Radicalized by history, he became an apostle of history, releasing the secret documents to the press to expose two decades of "executive deception" - a drastic act that he feared would bring him life imprisonment. 

The impact rippled far. For the first time, in the middle of a war, Americans could glimpse the glaring contradictions between Washington's secret intelligence reports and its wartime statements. Historians obtained a treasure trove of documents, which might still be locked up without Ellsberg's bold revelations. An enraged President Richard Nixon sent former CIA agents to rifle Ellsberg's psychiatrist's files to dig up dirt, initiating a train of actions that would lead to Watergate and Nixon's own ejection from office. 

Some people called Ellsberg a traitor. But his "betrayal" consisted of revealing the government's dark secrets to the American people, not a foreign enemy. The judge at his trial, alerted to Nixon's dirty tricks, threw the case out of court. 

Ellsberg's civil disobedience goes to the heart of democracy. A free people must know what their government is doing in their name, with their money and with their soldiers' lives. That's the law thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (1966) and the Presidential Records Act (1978), which mandate the release of government documents within a reasonable time. 

"By law," wrote David Cole, a specialist in legal affairs, "information may be classified only if its release would threaten national security. . . ." 

Unfortunately, the "national security" loophole has spawned an army of stonewallers: officials classifying documents without just cause or blotting out entire pages when responding to FOIA requests. Erwin Griswald, who argued Nixon's case against publishing the Pentagon Papers, later acknowledged the "massive overclassification of documents." The vast majority of them should be declassified, declared the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his study, "Secrecy: The American Experience." 

Recent criticism over governmental secrecy has focused on Bush's resistance to congressional committees investigating the intelligence failures leading to the 9/11 tragedy. More serious was Bush's refusal to release President Ronald Reagan's papers in January 2001, as mandated by the Presidential Records Act. Bush simply trumped the law with an executive order empowering himself and future presidents to withhold presidential papers, even if former presidents want them released. 

Bush's reasons for sealing the records are not clear. But those papers do cover an era bristling with contradictions to the righteous rhetoric underpinning Bush's policies. In the Reagan years, Washington supported violent dictatorships in Latin America and Asia. It armed radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan, budding terrorists who looked like the good guys against the Soviets before they trained their sights on Americans. And most telling, the United States embraced Saddam, already tagged a psychopathic killer, and built up his military machine when he was perpetrating the same atrocities Bush later cited to goad Americans to war. 

Defensible or not, the messy episodes recorded from the Reagan era are best kept hidden for a president touting a world that he sees clearly divided between good and evil. 

Our ignorance of Vietnam's history was among the "major causes for our disaster in Vietnam," McNamara confessed in his Vietnam memoir. His cautionary tale should apply to all our foreign relations, especially the Arab-Muslim world today. 

Open and honest history is no guarantee of successful policy. But without it, we are more vulnerable to the falsehoods and double standards that flourish in times of conflict, more subject to the entangling web of fears and false perceptions that ensnare nations on both sides when they go to war. 

"The study of history should transcend boundaries rather than reinforce or reproduce them," wrote historian Eric Foner. "In the wake of Sept. 11, it is all the more imperative that the history we teach be a candid appraisal of our own society's strengths and weaknesses, not simply an exercise in self-celebration. . . ." 


EDWARD CUDDY is a professor of history at Daemen College.

===


----------

