SEATTLE TIMES– The street below Danny Chen’s window in lower Manhattan has changed over the last decade from a bustling four-lane thoroughfare to an empty road lined with police barricades.

To get home each day, Chen has to present his ID at a police checkpoint. When the officer lowers the metal gate into the ground to let him in, he drives through as quickly as he can. More than once, the barricade has risen too soon, lifting his wife’s minivan into the air.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the New York Police Department barricaded off its headquarters on Park Row. About 2,000 residents in two apartment complexes found themselves living inside a security zone.

Nine years later, they still are. Many vehicles, including commercial traffic, are forbidden on the street, which used to be a key link between the Financial District and Chinatown. “This used to be a bustling area,” said Chen, a 52-year-old software engineer. “Now, it’s ghost-townish.”

In big cities across the country, security planters, metal gates and the concrete slabs called Jersey barriers have sprung up near government buildings. Washington, D.C., is littered with bollards. Nearly half of Los Angeles’ financial district is now partially restricted, according to a study at the University of Colorado Denver. Roads across dams have been closed to traffic for security concerns.

“I don’t want us to lose a way of life that we’ve had, but sometimes we have to consider security, too,” said Pace University Professor Joe Ryan, whose daily commute has been rerouted because of a road closure over the Kensico Dam in Valhalla.

The restrictions are especially noticeable to those sharing a backyard with the NYPD. Park Row residents say ambulance response times have risen and traffic has become bottlenecked since they began living behind barricades.

Read full article about Post 9/11 Checkpoints.

© SEATTLE TIMES 2010

October 2009

MEDIA ROOTS- The oft repeated lie will be perceived as truth. Post 9/11, the news reported has been managed propaganda, aimed at creating a climate of fear. Stories that do not reflect kindly on the agendas of the government or businesses that influence and fund the media are effectively blocked or back paged under sensationalized trivialities.

Without a functioning media that properly informs the populous which issues are significant, people will remain unaware of the pressing issues in our country and world and will be prevented from acting as responsible citizens in defense of their interests. By impeding the public from taking an informed participatory role in society, the mainstream media is crippling the democracy of the United States and undermining its very function.

Ron Suskind of the New York Times writes about speaking with a top White House aide.

“The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality… We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality- judiciously, as you will- we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.  We’re history’s actors… and all of you will be left to just study what we do.”

This statement demonstrates just how controlled our mainstream media has become.  The purveyors of information are so confident in their ability to manipulate public perception that they don’t even try to hide it.

Most Americans are unaware of even the most basic facts about the most important event of their lifetime.  A CNN 2003 Gallup poll showed that 51% of Americans believed that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11. And despite being reported in the media that the U.S. and other countries had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a 2006 Harris poll showed that a surprising 50% of U.S. adults think that Iraq had such weapons upon invasion.

These statistics are no accident.  Our country was in a volatile state after 9/11, and a great deal of responsibility was entrusted to our media to accurately report the competence of the administration’s handling of the war on terror. But the media failed in this respect, and did not scrutinize the Bush administration’s unsupported claims. The intelligence founding our pre-emptive invasion was distorted in order to manipulate public perception and garner support for the war, while the accountability from media watchdogs was virtually nonexistent.

The current and prior administrations’ agendas have been enabled by the mainstream media’s failure to report on crucial stories, and the information that is dispelled is saturated with disinformation. This makes it extremely difficult to discern the truths from the lies. For example, the Bush administration financed the preparation and distribution of false stories to the American public, and then used those stories to justify going to war. The Iraqi National Congress (INC) was paid $340,000 a month for the dissemination of information to the media about Saddam Hussein’s crimes, despite the fact that the CIA had determined their information to be completely unreliable. The propagation included inserting false stories about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and fictional meetings between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden into unsuspecting publications. Also, the Pentagon allotted a multimillion dollar contract to the Lincoln Group to run a pro America propaganda PR campaign in Iraqi newspapers, TV and radio in an attempt to boost the image of the war.

Due to the lack of common knowledge surrounding such issues, many people believe the media’s rhetoric is infallible, assuming the journalists are properly reporting all that is necessary to know. But television news organizations have become inundated with celebrity gossip, distorted information, and character assassinations among politicians. Once they stopped reporting on the casualties and circumstances of the Iraq war and Afghanistan occupation, it was easy to forget that we are in fact at war with one country and continuing to occupy another.

Some of the most under reported stories are the most damaging. Over the course of the last eight years, the Bush administration managed to pass constitution altering Acts that directly threaten our individual liberties and freedoms. The Military Commissions Act that was passed in 2006 dismissed the Constitutional principle of habeas corpus, one of our most innate rights as American citizens to have court review of unlawful detention. A story that should have been breaking news pinned on the front pages of newspapers was nearly ignored from mainstream media. And this is only one instance of the drastic measures that have been enacted and subsequently pushed under the rug by the prior administration and their complicit media. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, passed in 2007, destabilized the Posse Comitatus Act and undid prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law. The National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), a directive that planned for the continuity of government in the event of a national emergency, allowed the Bush administration to effectively declare martial law whenever they deem it necessary.

Possibly the most frightening Act of them all, the Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act, which was overwhelmingly passed in Congress by 404-4 votes on October 23^rd, 2007 but was stalled in the Senate, would have initiated a new crackdown on dissent and Constitutional rights of American citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism. The act would have established a “National Commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence… and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States.” The idea of developing a Commission to study and report on these findings seems harmless, but the definitions of terrorism and extremism in the bill are so vague that it could be used to define or generalize any group that is working against the policies of this administration.

The definition of violent radicalization criminalizes thought and ideology, while homegrown terrorism is defined as “The ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence to intimidate or coerce the government.” The term “force” is unclear and could encompass political activities such as rallies, marches, and other forms of nonviolent civil disobedience. When the act was proposed in Congress, it was used to target websites that are putting forth unanswered questions about the 9/11 attacks, and threatened to shut them down.

Threatening to limit the information available on the internet is a slippery slope, because it is the last bastion of free media we have. More and more people are becoming disillusioned with mainstream press and have helped the internet emerge as a powerful media resource. The public is now looking on the internet to sift through the information that is under reported or falsely portrayed in newspapers and television. Because of this, extremely important organizations such as Project Censored and Common Dreams have arisen, and are taking a stand on pushing these issues to the forefront. Only independent media organizations such as these can help the restoration of a democracy and the essential role of its informed citizenry.

The systematic dismantling of our Constitution is happening unabated. If the mainstream press did its job and primarily focused on these very important topics, then the public might be more apt to vote or participate in the democratic process on a larger scale. We need an objective reporting of the facts and a press that emphasizes the importance of a responsible and active citizenry, so that we can re-establish everything our country was built on. We can stop the deterioration of our democratic process and America can once again be the shining exemplar of freedom in the world.

***UPDATE

To find out more about media consolidation and the six major corporations that effectively guide the mainstream media’s output of information watch this video.

***UPDATE

Although the Bush administration is out of office, the same constitutional erosions still apply to Obama’s reign. In March of 2010, Obama signed an extension to the controversial Patriot Act without any reforms. Additionally, Obama has sided with the Bush Administration on key civil liberties issues dealing with terror detainees, military commissions, warrantless wiretapping and national security secrets. 

The ACLU chief, Anthony Romero, has recently stated in an interview with Politico that he is “disgusted” with Obama and his position on civil liberties. He explains his point-

“It’s 18 months and, if not now, when? … Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There’s no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. If there has been change in the civil liberties context, I frankly don’t see it.”

President Obama is a former Harvard law professor and head of the Harvard Law Review. Unlike Bush, Obama is an expert on civil liberties, the bill of rights and the Constitution. During his campaign, Obama repeated the promise that he would restore civil liberties and work to dismantle the Bush/Cheney war on the Constitution, but he has failed on all fronts to fulfill this promise. Just because there has been a transference of administrations doesn’t mean our civil liberties have been magically restored. Obama has been seated into a benevolent dictatorship by inheriting and adopting the Bush administration’s legislative policies and just because there is a different face on the same policies doesn’t mean we should forget about the freedoms that have been curtailed. Instead, we must be even more viligant and steadfast in the movement for accountability and restoration of the rule of law.

Written by Abby Martin

EAST BAY EXPRESS– On a gloomy recent morning in West Oakland, tenants at the David Gray Building — or, Off-Ramp Studios, as everyone who lives there calls it — stood in the hallways outside their lofts. They gathered around their doors in nervous clusters and spoke in hushed tones, wondering aloud whether they should head to work or stay and observe while two Oakland police officers, two building services code enforcers, a fire inspector, and three property management representatives entered all of their units one by one.

Traditionally the entire procedure would have required a search warrant. But on this day, the group of cops and city officials were operating under a little-known Oakland city program, called “SMART” — Specialized Multi-Agency Response Team — that some legal experts say may be unconstitutional. That’s because they enter people’s homes without consent or a warrant.

At the Off-Ramp Studios, they also entered one loft when no one was home. It was Unit 103. They knocked on the locked door and got no response. After about a minute of waiting, the building manager, who was carrying a tray of keys, opened the door, and everyone entered.

Inside were the remnants of a large, multi-level grow operation, including what appeared to be psilocybin mushroom caps and potted marijuana plants that had been sawed off. There also was evidence of methamphetamine production, according to fire inspector Vincent Crudele, who called the unit a potential felony crime scene. The officers hauled away large Ziplock bags filled with evidence seized from the inspection, and Crudele ordered the unit to be completely cleaned out by property management within 48 hours.

A week prior to the search, Crudele showed up at the Off-Ramp for a preliminary check in response to complaints from one tenant about an open party being planned by another tenant, said Frank Flores, director of development for Madison Park, the building’s leasing agent. Crudele said he noticed the smell of marijuana emanating from one particular unit — 103 — and decided then to schedule the SMART inspection for one week later.

For Crudele, having police officers accompany city inspectors during a SMART inspection ensures security in potentially volatile situations. “It’s a safety issue for us,” he said. “We have limited policing capabilities. If part of the populace is doing something illegal — that creates a problem for me. They may not want to cooperate.”

However, Northern California ACLU staff attorney Michael Risher questioned the legality of searching people’s homes without a warrant or consent. He also argued that it’s not all that burdensome to go down to the courthouse, swear-out an affidavit, and get a legitimate search warrant to look for illegal drugs or real safety hazards.

Read full article HERE.

© EAST BAY EXPRESS, 2010