US STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM
LAW ENFORCEMENT AS STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM
D.L.BLEWITT, J.D. Nov 2015
LAW ENFORCEMENT AS STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM
D.L.BLEWITT, J.D. Nov 2015
One of the lawyers with whom I shared an office was the son of a federal judge. He was the executor of his father’s estate and I helped him clean out some of his father’s office. There were hundreds of publications and other items of interest pertaining to law and the courts. But, one of the most interesting things that I discovered was that the Internal Revenue Service published a publication called “intelligence report,” which was fascinating reading with serious ramifications. Essentially the documents sent forth the philosophy of Law enforcement and compliance with the United States tax law. The manual stated that they didn’t expect to enforce all the laws of all the time, so they would selectively enforce laws and focus on certain laws or regulations investigate, publicized investigations, and use this as an example to scare the hell out of the citizenry which would thereby cause compliance. Today the press calls such tactics terrorism.
However, one of the most interesting of the discoveries I made was that the Internal Revenue Service reported sentencing conduct of all the federal judges in the United States, the implication being that certain judges who were soft would receive attention from the Internal Revenue Service. So the Internal Revenue Service had the power to define a crime, to set punishment, to force other branches of the Government to rubber stamp their decisions, all without the input of the electorate.
Some of this information revealed during the Pike and Church committee investigation on government misconduct in the intelligence community. They look to the IRS, CIA, Department of Defense, and other agencies. It is my belief that the committee’s didn’t investigate these agencies with the thought of Reform, but essentially were trying to discover how the citizenry became so informed about their questionable and illegal conduct. They issued Mammoth reports about misconduct in the intelligence and law enforcement areas and discovered such things as they had of the CIA in the head of the FBI were not communicating with each other, the CIA didn’t have to depend on Congress to fund any of its activities because it could fund itself, various agencies were spying on the citizenry and collecting information for future blackmail. I believe the reason this wasn’t investigated or brought in front of the court was because the judges were fearful of an audit or other retaliation. Right about this time a Federal Court of Appeals judge, by 2 FBI agents and indicted for lying to a federal officer and sent to prison dissent shock waves through the judiciary.
The government is still up to its slimy tricks today. Through the marketing of fear, the bureaucrats believe that they will have the power to listen to anybody’s conversation, read anybody’s mail, and snoop on everybody or anybody that they choose to spying upon. For instance, intelligence agencies had collected enough information about occurrences prior to the plane crashes into the twin Towers on 911 that the incident arguably could have been prevented there was intelligence information about the training of the pilot’s and about their political activities and political beliefs agents who reported this to superiors were ignored or even punished for rocking the boat. Bad things happened to whistle-blowers.
Now, under the “rubric of patriot act,” the great spy information vacuum cleaners are seeking more illegal powers ignoring the Constitution and other niceties because they have a fearful citizenry that they can manipulate. This reflects a dumb ass and incompetent view of law enforcement which only applies to a small population. That is, a person shouldn’t commit a crime because the government knows everything about him and consist through this information and prosecute him and send him to jail. That’s because the planners and decision makers know absolutely nothing about criminology or criminal’s, with the exception of maybe a few stockbrokers and bankers. Research shows that most crimes are committed impulsively without much thought. Typically, it’s a spur of the moment decision to rob gas station, a liquor store, bar, etc. the percentage of well thought out plan premeditated crimes is a very small part of criminal activity.
I would agree that terrorism doesn’t work that way. Terrorist acts are planned and premeditated and calculated to instill terror among a certain population. However most terrorist attacks are committed by zealots who really could care less whether or not there found out about. So, the “I’m going to get you” method of enforcement is in going to work. However, the Public doesn’t think this through. They hear some talking head declare that they need more power to tap telephones and spy on people so that they can protect the citizenry.
Basic terrorism 101 hypothesizes that acts of terror cause a State to react in a repressive way, thereby showing its flaws. It is based upon the premise that fear causes governments to over-react and alter their form of government, generally promoting a Fascist police state. Fear is the primary motivator of terrorist activities. It would appear that such tactics work. However, no one seems to have done a cost-benefits analysis of the implemented policies. Policies adopted to stem terrorism tend to keep idiots in power, but do little to actually solve the problems. However, they make citizens feel better.
To reinforce this idiotic policy, sting operations were invented. These served two purposes. It scared the hell out of potential perpetrators and made the public believe that something was being done about crime. So, as I pointed out 40 years ago in my campaign for DA, every time there was a burglary or assault, the police made a drug arrest and publicized it, causing the public to feel secure and assuring them that the police was effectively fighting crime. So, when the majority of participants in the 9-11 attacks turned out to be Saudis, we responded by invading Afghanistan. The public felt better because they were told that something was being done.
Another twist to the fear mongering is the adaptation of sting operations. These were designed to scare borderline offenders into compliance. The fact that many were entrapped didn’t ‘matter because the Courts changed the definitions of entrapment to make the policy work. So much for the presumption of innocence. Now everyone is thought of as a potential criminal.
To keep politicians in line, the officials set up judges and congressmen in highly publicized raids to show that even they could be chosen for sanction. The result is that most elected officials don’t supervise the Government effectively for fear of retaliation, or in some cases, even death. And, in a stroke of genius and cynical view of citizens, forfeiture policies were sold so that these outrageous acts of enforcement could not be regulated by elected officials. The police state became self-funding.
So I ask, who are the real terrorists? Who benefits from the implementation of a police state? Why haven’t these funds been administered and appropriated by legislators as the law provides? I don’t know, but I have my suspicions.