| SA, US moving closer in curtailing civil liberties
Mohau Pheko > >MY recent trip to the IMF-World Bank meetings in Washington DC last week >convinced me the US has become the most dangerous country to visit . On a >flight from New York to Washington DC, I was searched three times. > >In the name of catching terrorists, the US government has established >programme after programme to monitor law-abiding citizens and visitors. >Ordinary people are being trotted out daily, wrapped in nice-sounding >phrases like "pre-emptive" arrest, in other words arrest you before you do >anything wrong. All this seduction is used on Americans to convince them of >the need to keep them "secure". > >A new US act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, about 51 pages, >has authorised "trusted passenger programs". This allows government access >to personal information about "law-abiding" citizens. By calling it a >"trusted traveller card", it is marketed to make passengers believe they >will get faster, safer and more efficient check-ins and avoid travel delays. >Nothing could have been further from the truth in my case. The airlines are >using profiling and technology to track people : eye colour/retinal scan, >gender, religion, race, foreign-sounding name, fingerprints, DNA and a whole >range of characteristics are being used to monitor who is and who is not a >terrorist. I must have fitted the terrorist profile perfectly because >everything from my passport to my boarding pass seemed to indicate I was a >prime suspect. > >I was simply told: "Ma'm, please step aside, your name has been flagged and >we have to clear it with security." When I questioned why I was being >stopped so many times, I was quietly told by a sympathetic security officer >that my profile probably resembled the name of those suspected of crime and >terrorism . > >I might have been paranoid, but, it seemed to me, even the huge gentleman >sitting next to me, an intelligence marshal, must have chosen that seat to >ensure I did not harm any other passengers. > >Not only was I searched, but after boarding it was announced no passengers >were allowed to stand during the flight. If anybody did, the plane would >immediately return to the city it came from. Apparently, no one can stand in >flights of an hour or less. For longer flights, passengers are not allowed >to stand for the first and final 30 minutes of the flight. > >Before September 11, the US government had mandated vast databases of >detailed profiles of all the people in the US . Their finances, educational >background, employment, medical care, identity numbers, who they live with >and other activities about people's private lives, giving government >unfettered and immediate access to this information. > >T he US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention recently commissioned a >draft Model State Emergency Health Powers Bill . It seeks to establish a >type of martial law when a state public health authority declares a public >health emergency. If this becomes law, private property could be seized, >people subjected to medical tests and treatment without their consent, >physicians forced to administer treatments to patients as ordered by the >state or lose their licences . Individuals who object to this >government-mandated medical treatment on the grounds of religion or >conscience could be quarantined until authorities decide the public health >emergency has ended. > >Is there any doubt these measures are an anathema to a free society? I do >not imagine any of these measures will catch many terrorists. Research has >revealed the intelligence failure on September 11 was caused by too much >data clogging the system, rather than too little. > >What these measures do is primarily threaten freedom of speech and assembly, >and "what is going on in people's minds". A watched people are not free. > >President George W Bush has pushed for pre-emptive arrests. In other words, >arrest people before or just in case they are thinking about committing a >crime. Activists are under threat. > >Protest has taken on significant proportions in the US . About 600 people >were arrested before our march against the IMF-World Bank meetings. None of >them had guns; it was a peaceful demonstration. > >Frederick Douglass (1857) states: "Those who profess to favour freedom and >yet deprecate agitation are people who want crops without ploughing the >ground. They want the rain without the awful roar of the thunder and >lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Without >struggle, there is no progress. This struggle might be a moral one. It might >be a physical one. It might be both . . . but it must be a struggle. Power >concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will." > >Could it be that South Africa's Interception of Communication Act, as well >as the Terrorism Act, aim to control our movements and actions? The >Interception of Communication Act allows government to snoop into our >speeches, data, text, and visual images in any combination or form. This is >any information transmitted by postal service or SMS or electronic data. The >act defines intercept as "acquisition of the contents of any communication >through the use of any means, including interception device, so as to make >all of the contents of a communication available to a person other than the >sender or recipient or intended recipient of that communication". It gives >government the right to monitor communication, view, examine or inspect the >contents and divert it. > >What this means is that the telephone company or Internet company can >furnish this information to government without your consent. Is this another >act put in place to muzzle dissent? Why do we need all these tools for >tracking individuals who have not committed crimes? Are we not >overlegislating rather than implementing existing laws that protect citizens >without grossly violating their freedom ? > >Are the laws SA is introducing meant to combat criminals and terrorism, or >are they meant to profile those who are seen as a threat to government? Are >they, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, meant to "announce there must be >no criticism of the president or government, or that we are to stand by >government right or wrong", because not to do so is considered unpatriotic >and under the new law morally treasonable? > >Perhaps policymakers in SA need to be reminded it is not the function of >government to keep citizens from falling into error; rather it is the >function of the citizen to keep government from falling into error. The >latest SA legislation on terrorism and interception of communications are >reminiscent of US legislation that is cutting off civil liberties . > >It is the beginning of a fascist dictatorship when a people are "protected >for their own good". It is easy to govern a people forced to live under the >menace of terror and invasion of their privacy. It demands no social >reforms. It does not haggle over expenditure on arms deals and military >equipment. We should beware of leaders who bang the drums of terror in order >to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour. Patriotism is a double-edged >sword. It emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. |