Some observations on them thar' "FEMA internement camps" (that'll learn ya'!)

WWW--Let me make this crystal clear: if you believe this meme, you're probably either gullible, crazy, or both, but you're assuredly rocketing towards crankdom, even with the mess we're in right now, and it's a big mess brought to us from many of the same people making these claims. The first time I ever heard of this stupid meme was in a poorly produced and heavily-slanted videotape from the nefarious and long ago discredited Linda Thompson, a former Indianapolis attorney who cranked-out a few documentaries on Waco that were--to put it politely--conflated alarmist crap.

There was an earlier example during Iran-Contra: "leftist" anti-intervention activists were running around with their heads cut-off when it was revealed that Oliver North had considered arresting and detaining some of them in the event of an invasion of Nicaragua. It never amounted to anything, and never would have, it was North being G. Gordon Liddy, meaning batshit crazy. The overreaction was equally nuts and added to the hyped post-Watergate paranoia infecting the body politic, and it has continued into today. Thompson continued this meme in a way that could only be of benefit to Republicans, and didn't invent it, but popularized it in a way unlike ever before, and when the Internet was primarily the domain (pun intended) of geeks and IT wackos (like elements of the Legion of Doom) who thought like herself.

According to the SPLC, Thompson is currently living in North Carolina right now, where she must feel right at home. After calling for a militia attack on the nation's capital in 1995, she was thoroughly discredited, even among her "allies"on the right and throughout the militia movement in the Midwest. Her time was up at the mic. If you live in N.C., tell her hello, photograph her, and post it online. She deserves further scrutiny for the mess she left behind, now spreading like syphilis all over the Internet, but again, she didn't invent this meme, but she exploited it and popularized it further. It never surprised me that Thompson was working out of Indianapolis at the time, and she was good for a time, very clever. But it got out of hand as it tends to. For a few minutes, she had me fooled, but I was in college at the time and young (naive). But unlike the people who still cling to this pathetic belief, I grew out of it quickly.

Working out of a strip mall next to a Dominoe's Pizza (shades of the wacko Jack T. Chick who's been making similar claims for decades along with the John Birch Society), she had created her garbage anti-government propaganda, garnering as much as $300,000 from over-credulous meth-addicts and down-on-their-luck farmers. Thompson truly was a darling of the Libertarian/militia right. In some ways she still is a kind of a "shade" or "phantasm" since her part of the meme has outlived her time in the spotlight. Just today, someone on Facebook told me with a sense of utmost certainty about (I'm paraphrasing), "FEMA camps being set-up to incarcerate American dissidents throughout the nation in time of a national emergency." Sound familiar? They might want to quit smoking dope and pull their head out of their ass, it's pointing rightwards.

Yes, there was something called CABLE SPLICER, GARDEN PLOT, COINTELPRO, and several other programs of the same kind during the chaos of the 1960s-70s, they were unconstitutional, and at least as far as we know, they were shuttered. Is this a good excuse to disengage from the political process? Who generally benefits from that? It tends to be the GOP. A takeover doesn't work as these people describe it, it comes in increments, and with them running around chasing ghosts they certainly aren't any threat to one. Great, they know hot to cut-and-paste, maybe even read.

What's interesting is that unless it fits their anti-government meme, Libertarians are generally unmotivated or silent on similar threats found in specific provisions of the Patriot Act and have yet to put up an even remotely workable or sustained fight against it at all, just more of their conspiracy theory yammering that would never stand up in a court of law or lead to the creation of any investigative commissions. When you believe this garbage, the very notion of political participation is out the window, and it's pathetic. Never mind that Libertarians (including Alex Jones in their nexus) and the militias were/are part of the far right. Never mind that they're not fighting the actual "good fight" against all of these post-9/11 attacks on our rights as groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), CREW, or the ACLU are; they just talk, write, and bloviate like the ineffectual children that they always were and are. None of what they do is ever going to reach a court of law unless it's them who has misbehaved, just look at Jones--just not if you've eaten recently.

Thompson did quite a job on some very ignorant and immature people throughout the Midwest and even the former Confederacy, and she chose her marks well. She was calculated. This kind of dysfunctional behavior is part of "the pedagogy of the oppressed," to borrow a phrase. One of the biggest problems now is that they're trying to infiltrate the antiwar movement and the progressive movement, and they're making some inroads. Additionally, they have some ties to the white hate movement, albeit indirectly in most cases. Frankly, that's good enough for me. There is a real threat, but it's not from the government, it's from the politicians who are leading us all over the cliff. There is no substitute for political participation.

Most of the politicians in Washington have strings coming out of their backs leading to Wall Street and its environs, and they're laughing all the way to the bank at the fringe populist minority, a group of oxymorons if ever there was one. The fact is, they're the minority and they're not part of the progressive movement in any real sense, but they are problematic and should be countered at every juncture and removed if necessary from these groups in a polite and legal fashion, as befits a truly progressive movement. No one said struggle was easy or that you weren't going to get your hands dirty, and these people are dragging us down a bit and muddying the waters. That's how it goes and how it's always been, and how it's always going to be. Accept that it's a part of your entire life--the struggle against unaccountable power--and you've made a very serious step towards adulthood.

A good summation of Thompson from the SPLC:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=367

More cries of "coup," this time regarding AIG from Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone Magazine--I haven't read a copy of RS since 1992, so you probably know from this fact that they don't elicit much respect or admiration from me.

At best, the publication has been patently mainstream from its inception, a cheerleader of the consumer model, and a part of what's gotten us into the economic crisis we're now inhabiting.

Occasionally, the dinosaur ownership realizes at RS how inane and unimportant that they've become (once, the criticisms came from old school RS writers like the late Hunter S. Thompson) and pays someone to write something substantial about where things are at.

Their political articles are often belated pieces that would have had a better impact had someone commissioned them when the corruption and crimes were everywhere--occurring literally out in the open, down the street from RS's NYC offices--but advertisers don't like political coverage, especially when they're involved in the mess, and that would mean spending the money on a full time investigative team.

This doesn't fit into all the wonderful business models of recent times, so they don't have one, because since the introduction of CBS's "60 Minutes," the news is supposed to be profitable and entertaining.

Somehow, in this peculiarly adamant pro-business environment, we're being entreated to ditties from the Fourth Estate itself that "democracy will be inhibited without newspapers," yet when we had all of them they did little to protect it, making for a zero-sum loss in the age of the Internet. Yes, coverage will definitely become deeply "impaired" for a time, and there will likely be further consolidations of media, but what future will the survivors have in a generally wrecked economy? Being king is fine, but king of the garbage dump doesn't sound very grand to these ears.

One might also factor-in how hard it is to do business during widespread strikes and insurrection, but that's what defense contractors are for.

Into this bloody fray comes a Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi on AIG and--please bear with me--the notion that the Wall Street bailouts have been a "coup."I don't believe that it's that simple, that many of these critics have been dangerously naive about our system and its promises because of their own "successes" ("You're just jealous."), and that they're finally discovering how America really works. You know: the American people are usually the last to know, because there are "unknown knowns," in the thankfully inimitable words of Donald Rumsfeld.

...["]When one considers the comparatively extensive system of congressional checks and balances that goes into the spending of every dollar in the budget via the normal appropriations process, what's happening in the Fed amounts to something truly revolutionary,” a kind of shadow government with a budget many times the size of the normal federal outlay, administered dictatorially by one man, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. "We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion," says Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It is beyond comprehension." ... ("Back to the Big Takeover," Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, April 2, 2009 issue)

If it's a "shadow government," it's only because Congress delegated those powers to the executive branch and consciously did so over a period of decades. The article at least makes this point clearly enough. It should be added that Sec. of Treasury Bernanke has to answer to the President of the United States, ultimately, since he might have problems with how the money gets spent...or not. Taibbi is wrong--it really is all about money, the only thing Americans can be roused to action by. In other words, the Treasury Department isn't a separate branch of government, although Taibbi and others seem to be suggesting that it is. Were it that simple.

But this has been a real point-of-contention with me, since a "coup" means a real world transfer of power, generally to people who weren't originally "in-charge," with at least some essence of "finality" to it, however fleeting. Paradoxical--yes--and welcome to the world of power politics where language and logic break down above the atomic level. Sure, the Treasury Department and the Fed have significantly more power at the moment, that's true, and that's really an expansion of the power of the executive branch in the end. Former Vice President Cheney must be proud of his contribution to all of this.

Not since Hitler has so much confusion been sown in the halls of a modern government. It helped to have enablers and other fellow travelers along the way. So, these calls of a "coup" are more than a little belated--they actually sound weird coming at this moment. Habeas corpus has been nominally restored through the courts, but significant breaches in our Constitution are still there. There were many voices on the left who warned about the economic crisis and the war on terror's rollback of our rights from the start, and a few on the right, and so on.

But they weren't especially passionate voices, and they were ignored as they usually are.

Where were all these cries from the right and the mainstream media during the passage of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act? Off making money at the time, they couldn't be bothered to care at the time. When I question some of the "coup counters," they tend to settle on the term "paper coup," and neglect to go into any further details. A real world analog would help, like Yeltsin's creation of the Oligarchs through the Russian State granting them mineral rights, or similar moves in South America during the last sixty years. That would have been a business luncheon for the Bush II administration.

Perhaps it just sounds good to the ears, that "c-word." It gives one the appearance of being prescient, prophetic, like Ronald Reagan (in appearance only). Granted, the term "coup" is taking over (pun intended) throughout the political spectrum.

Taibbi continues:

...The state is now being asked not just to call off its regulators or give tax breaks or funnel a few contracts to connected companies; it is intervening directly in the economy, for the sole purpose of preserving the influence of the megafirms. In essence, Paulson used the bailout to transform the government into a giant bureaucracy of entitled assholedom, one that would socialize "toxic" risks but keep both the profits and the management of the bailed-out firms in private hands. Moreover, this whole process would be done in secret, away from the prying eyes of NASCAR dads, broke-ass liberals who read translations of French novels, subprime mortgage holders and other such financial losers. ... (Ibid)

And this is new in American history, because...? Frankly, I don't get it--these are the very same people in control of the system in the end (the original ones, the ones whose names are being withheld on TARP payout papers), the same super rich "investors" and business bureaucrats inside and outside of our government who played, and lost. Welcome to the inherent ( il)logic of our economy, you missed the memo. Was there some arch-conspiracy, or some kind of a plan to this? Were you paying attention?

This makes a grand leap of logic that these people on Wall Street were and are competent.

Are you kidding? Does it really look like they're good at anything done above board, legally? They aren't good at business, they cannot rule or govern effectively or sustainably, and it will all crash no matter how much they attempt to leave the rest of us with the bill. Their time is up, it's a given, even with these machinations that induce the apathetic, cynical, and gullible, to ascribe godlike powers to a bunch of Wall Street (and truth be know, Main Street) clowns.

That they're not good at business is a given, but that most of them are criminals has yet to be proven, but will be. They're going to keep playing the same games because it's all they know, and when the rules don't favor them they change the rules. Does that sound sustainable? Let them have their fun, playing with their Monopoly money, but if they get their way, any recovery is going to be short-lived in a system whose time came at least a generation ago, the rest being mythology.

Americans have often wrongly measured their freedoms and liberties through economic indicators and their ability to purchase while neglecting the very existence of a quality of life and the social contract. There will be plenty of time to reflect on that now.

"Back to the Big Takeover," Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, April 2, 2009 issue: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover

The FBI Never Gets Their Man: Bruce E. Ivins

Lies
Federal Bungling Investigators/The United States Army (nuff' said, don't ask , don't tell)--Even a cursory look at the stories should tell you something: the FBI and other investigative bodies botched this investigation for nearly seven years.

It was only when the psychopath behind it began acting-out, disintegrating, that he was reported by his psychiatrist and therapeutic counselor.

In addition to this fact, we find that Mr. Ivins had a history of behavioral problems extending-back to his days as a graduate student. This has all been easily uncovered by media, and presumably Ivins's counselor Jean Duley and psychiatrist, Dr. David Irwin. Irwin probably conveyed Ivins's psychiatric history to Duley.

The real heroes? Not the FBI, but Ivins's aforementioned psychiatrist and counselor. He told them quite a bit, which is why Duley put out a restraining order on the man, reporting him to police as is procedurally laid-out for a psychiatrist or a mental health worker.

But ultimately, it had to be Dr. Irwin who made the original diagnosis and who alerted the authorities.

If a patient is clearly psychotic, has confessed to crimes or the strong desire (and the wherewithal to do it) and attempts to commit them, a psychiatrist or counselor is morally and legally bound to report it to the authorities to prevent a potential crime. But only a psychiatrist can make an official diagnosis of psychopathology, or that someone is dangerously psychotic.

Duley went to the police. On July 10, authorities at the Fort Detrick lab where he worked removed him from the premises and had him committed for a psychiatric evaluation. A judge in Frederick, Md., granted an order that required Ivins to cease contact with Duley and stay away from her home and place of work.

The FBI suspects that Ivins' behavior changed after the Justice Department announced a $5.8 million settlement a former scientist from the same Fort Detrick lab. Steven Hatfill, who then-Attorney General John Ashcroft named a person of interest in the case in August 2002, had claimed he was unfairly targeted and his reputation damaged by leaks to the press. ("Counselor: Anthrax Scientist Was 'Homicidal,' " ABC News.go.com, 08.03.2008)

Yet, Ivins blamed Duley and not his psychiatrist Dr. David Irwin, the man who can be safely presumed to have made the diagnosis and originally alerted the authorities of Ivins's threat to himself and others.

The formerly bungled investigation finally got going on the right foot for the first time since 2002. What likely is that they confronted Ivins and notified him of what the potential charges held (the death penalty), he saw no way out, and he committed suicide. Why? Because he was guilty. Innocent people don't act like Ivins.

The problem with the feds' story of breaking the case? Dr. Irwin probably broke the case, and Duley just added fuel to the fire. Doubt it? Here's some of the transcript of the taped interview with Duley where she was requesting the restraining order. The Smoking Gun's documents state "received July 24th," and it's signed and dated as such by the counselor:

(Describing early morning voice messages from Ivins) [Ed.--Curiously, no date given.]

Duley: The first voice message was sort of a ranting, blaming me for having this done to him. It was sort of just rambling.

Same with three minutes later, saying that obviously we no longer have a therapeutic relationship, and how could I do this to him.

(Describing a July 12 call)

Duley: That one was rather scary. He very calmly thanked me for ruining his life and opening, allowing the FBI now to be able to prosecute him for the murders and that it was all my fault, and it's going to be my fault that they could now get him. [Ed.--A virtual confession of his crimes.] ...

Duley: As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people, either through poisoning—he is a revenge killer when he feels that he's been slighted or has had, especially towards women, he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killing. He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer. ("Excerpt of tape in which therapist Jean Duley seeks restraining order against Bruce Ivins," The Minneapolis Star, 08.02.2008)

Wouldn't one have filed right away, right after the first message on what appears to be the 9th of July? I would, but not if someone else had reported Ivins. There is an apparent contradiction in the timeline that masks Irwin's involvement: did Duley make earlier contacts with the authorities? Irwin must have. Perhaps Duley did make earlier contact with federal authorities, but she must have felt covered by Dr. Irwin in some way. What authorities did Dr. Irwin contact?

Did the FBI put Duley and Irwin under protection after the July 9-12 calls from Ivins? The record seems confused. Since there's no oversight of the FBI by Congress, we may never know their role in this breakthrough. The transcript of the restraining order reads as though Duley had already been briefed thoroughly on Ivins, but by whom? Probably Irwin.

Duley was scheduled for an August 1st appearance before the grand jury. She also knew by July 24th that Ivins would be charged with "5 capital murders," and that the "FBI [is] involved. She waited two weeks to file the restraining order on Ivins, thanks to the fact that he was being held for observation at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore. Yet why the need for a restraining order with other authorities, local ones?

On another count, gleaned from Duley's filing, Ivins's superiors at Fort Detrick and the bioweapons program he worked for had some inkling that he was completely nuts, and barred him from entry of the bioweapons research facility where he worked on July 10th. But there are other indications in the above record that they knew he was sick for several years. Irwin and Duley could probably answer these questions, hence the peculiarity of the records based on what little additional context is being provided against public statements by investigators and the aforementioned players.

When you bring in the "big guns" of psychiatry to examine a top level government scientist, someone's paying the bills, and it's unlikely that his employers would have been unaware. What's more likely is that they ordered the diagnoses themselves for legal protection, among other reasons.

Many questions remain, and are likely to remain so, in order that those who could have identified Ivins--but did not, probably due to incompetence and his peculiar talents--aren't held accountable. This is likely more of a story of bungling by federal investigators within and without of the United States Army, as well as outside pressure to contain information of a questionable weapons program and the real dangers it poses to the civilian population. Other questions will remain for future historians, one could imagine, and for decades.

One question is highly pertinent: of the many anthrax-laced envelopes that were sent, why were some to the opponents (primarily Democrats) of the Patriot Act, and by a top-level biowarfare scientist after a major terrorist attack on US soil? Was he told to? Senator Patrick Leahy was one of the recipients, though he emerged from the incident unscathed. That raises numerous alarming possibilities and questions to those of us paying attention, and they are of a constitutional nature. I'm not alone:

Daschle, whose office was a target of the attacks, tells Fox News Sunday that from the very beginning he's had "real concerns" about the quality of the investigation.

He notes the government recently agreed to pay almost 6 million dollars to a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who accused authorities of unfairly targeting him in the probe.

Daschle says he doesn't know if the investigation involving the late government microbiologist Bruce Ivins "is just another false track and a real diversion" from where investigators need to be. ("Daschle criticizes FBI's handling of anthrax probe," AP, 08.03.2008)

If it says anything at all, it's that our own weapons programs can be turned against us by lunatics--and Ivins wasn't the usual kind. He wasn't a politician, but a nutty geek who made things that killed people. He was already sick wanting to work at Fort Detrick, having been there for 36 years.

Dr. David Irwin and Jean Duley are likely to be the real heroes here, not the U.S. Army's investigators, and certainly not the storied FBI. Ivins is just one part of the American disease, and so are they. Duley's husband is calling her a hero. Ivins behavior was probably tolerated due to his actual value to powerful interests. How far that value extends is the real question. "The relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo takes its toll in different ways on different people. ...In Dr. Ivins' case, it led to his untimely death." states the press release by his attorney.

Tell it to another Fort Detrick scientist, Steven Hatfill, he survived nearly six years of pressure and harassment at the hands of the FBI. They went as far as to run his foot over with one of their surveillance cars. No tears here for Ivins, that's for his misguided former co-workers and neighbors, the kind who never notice serial killers in their midsts.

"Excerpt of tape in which therapist Jean Duley seeks restraining order against Bruce Ivins," The Minneapolis Star, 08.02.2008: http://www.startribune.com/nation/26212859.html?location_refer=Nation:highlightModules:7

"Counselor: Anthrax Scientist Was 'Homicidal,' " ABC News.go.com, 08.03.2008: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5503274&page=1

"Anthrax Suspect Homicidal, Sociopathic-Counselor sought restraining order against biodefense researcher," The Smoking Gun, 08.01.2008: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0801081anthrax1.html

"Documents reveal turbulent days leading to a dark end," FrederickNewsPost.com, 08.02.2008: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1452500

Postscript, 08.07.2008: Yes, I am implying that the FBI rarely ever closes a case successfully without tips from informants. They're flatfoots, and the real adults quit to be around someone intelligent like a janitor. The FBI would be a joke if it wasn't for the fact that they've continued to systematically harrass dissenters, and generally done everything outside of their mandate. They never got John Dillinger either, that's a myth.

S.185: RESTORE HABEAS CORPUS ACT

www.democrats.com--The folks at democrats.com are running a petition urging all members of Congress to pass this bill, restoring habeas corpus not just for those detained by the United States, but for every American citizen. The bill's sponsor is Arlen Specter, and he deserves his due on this one. At least he's willing to fix what he originally neglected.

He wisely sponsored it with Sen. Patrick Leahy and 18 other Democratic Senators on December 5th, 2006 as S.4081 during the ill-fated 109th Congress, and it has continued with its resubmission as S.185 by Specter on January 4th of this year. Former-Sen. John Edwards wasn't one of them for the original bill and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is missing from the vote in the current version. The question is: why?

Beyond Specter, there are no current GOP cosponsors. Nearly every Democratic candidate for president currently in the Senate are sponsoring it, but a good number of Democratic Senators are AWOL. What's so controversial about an 800-year-old tradition? It's curious, but they might have felt that the bill's language wasn't assertive enough.

Otherwise, this is bipartisanship with substance. This blog urges everyone to consider signing the petition, Congress has been dawdling in their pledge to restore this fundamental right in Anglo-American law. It has been the basis of the liberties we've enjoyed for nearly 800 years. It should never have been suspended, but was done in an atmosphere of haste and political panic by opportunists in the GOP and the Bush administration.

This is all to eliminate "the Military Commissions Act," hastily passed by the dying 109th Congress on September 28th (in the House) and 29th (in the Senate) of 2006, in gross-defiance of the will of the American public--it surely figures-into the end of the Republican majority less-than two months later, just another nail. Voters should recognize that current GOP incumbents are still holding their un-American viewpoint on habeas corpus, and vote accordingly in 2008. John McCain and Joe Lieberman voted to suspend habeas corpus, and a surprising number of Democrats...and one Sen. Arlen Specter.

The petition:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/113

The Senate bill (S.185, of the 110th Congress): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-185

Amnesty International on the Military Commissions Act: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006

The Military Commissions Act of 2006: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

How they voted on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259