Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:19:32 -0400 To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Subject: IT DIDN'T WORK by Victor Milan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by aztec.asu.edu id SAA18186IT DIDN'T WORK by Victor Milan <vicmilan@ix.netcom.com>
9/11/01 - What our governmental masters and their media lickspittles have longed for semi-secretly for years has finally come to pass: a massive terrorist attack on American soil. In every syllable squeezing from the television you can hear the undertone: _at last: an end to all this nonsense about individual liberty. An end to anti-government sentiment. We can crush dissent and complete our enslavement of the American people, and the masses will applaud!_
But before you go joining the amen chorus - ban encryption! strip searches for airlines passengers! - you might reflect on one little detail.
It hasn't worked.
Retired FBI mobster Jim Kallstrom bubbled and fumed about how we were going to have to "get serious" about security. I wanted to scream at the set: are you now going to admit a missile took down TWA 800, consistent with the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, and give up the shabby fiction that the crash was caused by an internal fuel explosion which have proven impossible to duplicate by exhaustive testing?
The irony is, they actually might, in order to fan the fervor to Do Something About Terrorism which will likely ensue from today's attack.
The unspeakable Tom Brokaw practically quivered with glee as he spoke of how foolish we had been to resent airport security measures, and how reassured we would be in the future for the massively increased measures no doubt on their way.
The problem is Ö it didn't work.
The other problem is: it will _never_ work.
Anyone willing to regard the facts with so much as one eye open has seen for decades that metal detectors and other airport security measures do nothing to deter terrorists. We can debate the effect on casual nuts and criminals; but serious, organized operators wanting to hijack a plane do so without ever coming within hundreds of yards of metal detectors: by infiltrating or overpowering the ground crew, or simply driving up onto the asphalt next to the airplane and waving guns. So it has happened in dozens of hijackings worldwide since the metal detectors went in. So it apparently happened today.
During the first Bush's Gulf War airport security was tightened - and civil liberties eroded further. The object, of course - since even the FBI at the time admitted it had no evidence of "Iraqi terror squads" on the ground in the USA - was to further desensitize us to sheep-like submission to intrusive, police-state supervision and scrutiny, with a view to expanding it (and they've done so - look at the public "schools").
Now, smug statist extrusions like Brokaw assure us, today's events prove how necessary such measures were, no?
No. They prove those measures _didn't work._
The Clinton junta was the most fascistic in American peacetime history. Clinton gutted the Bill of Rights, unleashed massive domestic spying, turned every imaginable federal agency and plenty of unimaginable ones - HUD has a SWAT team - into military powers. Thanks to your federal tax dollars, so lavishly distributed by Clinton, every cow town large enough to have a traffic light has on call a heavily-armed death squad kitted out in the same sort of uniforms they'd be wearing if the Nazis had successfully invaded America. Look cross-eyed at a member of our ruling classes and they'll be happy to surround your house and shoot you - and your pets, and your neighbors, and sometimes one another.
Didn't slow down the terrorists much, now, did they?
This is no doubt going to be unpopular. But I have to say it:
We have to just say no.
The plans to further destroy our liberties have long been drawn up, awaiting just such a provocation. You know it. I know it.
But - even assuming this wasn't a provocation in the sense of having been staged with the encouragement or connivance of the US government, which, yes, I absolutely believe to be a possibility (if you never saw the video of an FBI informant teaching the original WTC bombers how to mix ANFO, at least you've figured out the government lied about OKC, I hope) - you have another reason, beyond the atavistic, selfish craving for personal liberty which we're all sure to hear endlessly lambasted in the coming weeks, to resist the programmatic wave of assaults on the few liberties Clinton left us.
Which is Ö it _won't work_.
Whatever grotesque humiliations they're going to make us undergo for the privilege of flying, once flights resume tomorrow - flying naked? foregoing carry-on luggage? - will do nothing to prevent a recurrence of just these events. As existing security measures did nothing.
But guess what? That's just the beginning. If terrorists want to use "weapons of mass destruction," no amount of dictatorship or internal security can or will stop them.
If you consent to give up any freedom, any liberty, even any more of your tax money - you will get no more security.
Want to be safe from WMDs? Move out of the city. Homestead the National Forest. Move off Ground Zero.
There is no other way. A video camera on every street corner - the four or five that don't yet have them - won't prevent terrorists from unleashing a nuclear device or biological or chemical agent anywhere they want to. In military terms the only defense against such weapons is dispersion. Unless they repeal the laws of physics, that's unlikely to change.
Of course, we haven't had NBC terrorism yet - although no doubt our masters and their lackeys have their fingers crossed that, good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, they won't have much longer to wait. But we will.
But even in light of what actually has happened: so long as we have air traffic, the risk of planes being turned into flying bombs will persist as well. Again, no murder-rape of the Bill of Rights will prevent that. The only thing which could even forestall it is a solid cordon around every landing strip in North America, including military bases - what happens when the bad guys jack a KC-135 flying tanker and take it to Disneyland?
America was a police state before the planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the suburbs of Pittsburgh. America was already in effect an occupied country. And all of it ion the name of Ö protecting us.
Our occupiers have failed totally to protect us. They will fail consistently in the future. The only things governmental measures - the barbed wire, videocams, phone taps, email surveillance; the crushing of dissent; the confiscation of firearms (you don't think they'll pass up an opportunity to crank that up a notch, do you?) - will _or can_ protect is our rulers. From us.
Remember this: if you give them what they ask it will do _nothing_ to enhance your personal safety. Nothing. It will more than likely decrease it, measurably and rapidly.
So when they come on your TV and ask you to give them the world to make you safe from terrorism - tell them where to go.
They tried that. It didn't work. - - -
ADDENDUM TO "IT DIDN'T WORK" by Victor Milan <vicmilan@ix.netcom.com> Exclusive to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
9/14/01 - the government is sticking resolutely to claims that the four airplanes were hijacked by men wielding box cutters and improvised knives.
If true, it changes nothing. All the "security" measures we have had heaped upon us failed to protect us. And even if measures might be instituted which would forestall _this particular_ mode of attacking a jetliner, they will leave others gaping wide.
There remains no defense against WMDs but dispersion. Against more one-on-one violence, such as the hijackings themselves, the best defense is an armed populace - as the heroic but unarmed passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 proved beyond what even slithering filth like Schumer and Feinstein can question. What might they have achieve had they been permitted to carry the proper tools?
Which brings us face-up with another nightmare scenario: what if Flight 93's passengers, having overcome the terrific disadvantage of being disarmed - as much morally, by the government's constant litany of "don't resist!", as by the lack of physical instruments - and successfully overwhelmed their attackers, were then shot down by the US government? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE ................................ ISSUE 139
September 17, 2001 ..................................... Nine One One - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are _not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- LNS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Publisher Internet Service Provider L. Neil Smith Alan Wendt <lneil@ezlink.com> <alan@ezlink.com> <http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil> <http://www.ezlink.com>
Editor Honorary Editor John Taylor Vin Suprynowicz <tle@johntaylor.org> <vin@lvrj.com>
Webmaster Web Hosting Provider Ken L. Holder William Stone and Associates <webmaster@webleyweb.com> <wrstone@wrstone.com> <http://www.webleyweb.com> <http://www.wrstone.com> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Permission is hereby granted to quote from TLE, provided that recognition is given to the original author, and that TLE is cited (please include the issue number and TLE's URL).
Permission is further granted to reprint articles from The Libertarian Enterprise, provided that the article is printed in full, recognition is given to the author, and TLE is cited (please include the issue number and TLE's URL).
You may also forward the text-based e-mail edition of TLE intact without restriction (but please be sure that your intended recipient can and will welcome such a large message to his/her mailbox!) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, all material contained herein is distributed for nonprofit educational purposes, and for other fair use purposes including, but not limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/