From: "Jim McMichael"
On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:25:31
Robert Lederman wrote:
Mueller, Ashcroft and the Bush Police State
To the editor,
The Bush administration's top cops have apologized for what they
claim were mistakes about 9/11. The only problem is, these were
not mistakes of omission but deliberate failures to act. FBI
agents were ordered by the administration not to investigate bin
Laden and the Saudis. The wire tap an FBI agent wanted on what
turned out to be the 20th hijacker was deliberately blocked by a
superior. Memos specifically about suspected terrorists taking
flight lessons in US schools were consistently ignored as were
specific high-level warnings about an imminent attack from a
whole variety of foreign governments. Now, besides their phony
apology, they want to blame it all on low-level FBI agents and
then use this lame excuse to justify turning the FBI into a
souped-up domestic spy organization with sweeping new powers
which virtually eliminate all Constitutional protections. The
real problem was not that they couldn't detect a coming
terrorist attack but that they didn't want to. The solution is
to fully investigate 9/11 and hold the highest level Bush
officials responsible for what it now seems inevitable will come
out of such an investigation. That, not creating a Gestapo-like
police state, will protect the American people.
Robert Lederman, President A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics)
robert.lederman@worldnet.att.net
http://baltech.org/lederman/
If I may presume to comment, your letter misses the intended point
entirely, of course. But you have nicely framed the unintended
point: the FBI apologizes for not doing what they are paid to do, in
order to get permission to do what they shouldn't.
That seems paradoxical, until we recognize that both the scandal of
omission and the apology are a backhanded method of insisting the
nature of 9-11 was just what they said it was, despite the
widespread disbelief that it was not and could not have been.
Despite the lack of investigation prior to 9-11 and their utter
surprise when it happened, they knew immediately what it was, who
did it, and why. The more they investigate, the less evidence they
have. They are so certain of their accusations after eight months
of investigating, imprisoning, and grilling their prisoners, they
can neither present sufficient evidence for proper arrest warrants,
nor restore to the prisoners the liberties endowed by their Maker.
"Mea culpa," says the FBI: The shepherds were wool-gathering when
the wolves attacked. If only We the People would give them more
(more power, more secretiveness, more money, and more men) and
require less (less accountability, less lawfulness, less evidence,
and less justice), they would do a better job next time -- except
that more attacks are inevitable and we can do nothing to stop them.
The only thing we can do is live in fear and build America into a
garrison state -- with armed guards on the street corners, secret
police under the bed, cramped civil liberties, and a society of
fear to rival former Soviet Russia.
In return, I offer the following essay forwarded by another
correspondent:
The FBI's Orwellianspeak
By Clay Rossi
May 31, 2002
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/rossi/20020602-fss.htm
Fictionally, George Orwell described it as doublespeak. Soviet
historian Edvard Radzinsky defined it as in-depth language, while
American writer Ken Smith has dubbed it "junk English." Call it what
you will, the words that don't mean a thing are the bulwark of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's reorganization. The very term
"reorganization" is not so much a solution as the very problem.
Ken Smith, from his indispensable guide Junk English, notes that
"re-verbs" (like reorganize, rethink, reformulate) "are politically
useful in a bureaucratic world." The "re-verb" is safe because it
shows a complete lack of the ever-dangerous capacity for independent
thought that the leaders of the cubicle drones so fear. Instead, to
"re-" a verb means "merely taking something that already exists and
change it into something new and wonderful." Is there any surprise
that Director Mueller's comments on "reorganizing" the FBI included
the notions of a bureau that is "redesigned and refocused"? Of
course, Mueller warns that the process is always under
"re-evaluation." All of this leads one to think that what Mueller is
talking about is anything but remarkable.
The generous peppering of Dilbert-esque "re-verbs" aside, Mueller
also indulges in "invisible diminishers." These are subtle words
designed to sap the strength out of other words or, metaphorically
speaking, they are words specially inserted to keep the bar as low
as possible. For example, Director Mueller promises to
"fundamentally change the way we [the FBI] do business." Flat out
promising a change would mean that observable changes would take
place – but that is too ambitious. Instead Mueller falls back on
the word "fundamentally." Any sports fan knows that "fundamentals"
are the mechanical aspects of the sport that the layman most likely
does not know. The average Yankee fan doesn't notice if Derek
Jeter's footwork on the pivot to second base is fundamentally
sound. Neither might the bleacher bum observe that a hitter might
have displayed a fundamental flaw in his swing during a batting
slump. If, in baseball, fundamentals are for the experts and not the
casual fan, then for Mueller it is much the same. Don't expect the
FBI to display any discernible differences, just trust that
somewhere deep beneath the surface that things at the bureau are
different. Just like a used car salesman Mueller says, "Trust me."
Like any solid piece of bureaucratic prose, Mueller's statements are
full of needlessly complex words. Phrases like "analytical
capacity," "analytical resources" and "analytical capabilities" that
leave one having to parse for meaning. Seemingly the "analytical"
functions of the FBI are all about spying, but spying is an impolite
word. This means that when the FBI's "key near-term action" item to
"[s]ubstantially enhance analytical capabilities with personnel and
technology" is translated into vernacular English, it might read:
"We want to spy a lot more on everyone with more spies and cooler
hi-tech gizmos."
When not proclaiming "new priorities," "new resources," and a "new
structure applying a new approach," Mueller warns that the FBI needs
a "dramatic departure from the past" which is exemplified by the
concept that "in the end our culture [within the FBI] must change
...".
For anyone who took the time to decipher his words, Mueller tries to
ameliorate any fears of beefed-up domestic spying by reminding
Americans that the bureau "must never forget that our actions must
be undertaken according to a constitutional and statutory framework
that protects the rights and privacy of our citizens. That too is
part of our culture ...". Citizens can draw solace from the fact
that if we restructure Mueller's concepts, we learn that it is part
of the traditional FBI culture to respect people's rights and we
have his assurance that the culture is changing.
The real damage done by words like the ones given to us by Robert
Mueller is that such empty utterings don't give succor – they
only leave the hearer more detached, confused and frustrated. The
bureaucrat's solution to a problem is ambiguous speech. But in a
nation where disclosure of information and accountability of those
in power are the safeguards of democracy, this stultifying
crypto-speak is the modern equivalent of a palace coup.
For all his failings, personal and public, J. Edgar Hoover was a man
of direct speech and perhaps that is why, when FBI director, he
inspired the confidence of the American people. Hoover once said,
"Just the minute the FBI begins making recommendations on what
should be done with its information, it becomes a Gestapo." Not only
can't Mueller say this, he doesn't understand it.
J
---
911 Terror:
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
|