Liberty

Argumentation Community Group,


The Department of Homeland Security is exploring the use of domestic UAV drones at Fort Sill and I would like to petition some grievances for redress. I would like to indicate that a growing number of Americans do not want the Department of Homeland Security on our Cabinet nor their egregious behaviors, which are neither of a law enforcement or a military nature, upon our soil. The Fort Sill incident evidences that the Department of Homeland Security could intend to or be intended to expand beyond coordinating its constituent bureaucracies.

Many Americans don't want future Americans to have to say the word "homeland" and some posit that "homeland" is a euphemism to disguise a superfluous and unconstitutional domestic security agency or domestic intelligence agency.

A recent Senate report about the Department of Homeland Security has called into question the legality, utility, and expense of their domestic surveillance, information harvesting, data fusion centers, and other operations including in coordination with the military on American soil.

With regard to similarities between 2002 and 1947, historical American opinion about the National Security Act, before the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, is somewhat difficult to find. We can see, however, past newspaper articles about the legislation alongside a contemporary understanding that the National Security Act of 1947 has a backstory beyond the current version of its Wikipedia article [2].

After WWII, the United States and Britain were staunch postwar allies and at least those two nations were involved, unusually, in the preparation of key portions of the domestic legislative item. Several drafts of portions of the National Security Act had been deemed, by experts, far too unconstitutional to be presented on the floor of the American Congress and only the last draft, included as a rider to a post-war military restructuring bill, was determined to have been politically feasible.

Some Americans do not want the national security apparatus of 1947 and some feel that the end of the Cold War was a time of appropriate conclusion. Similarly, some opine that the Department of Homeland Security can now conclude in the aftermath of the War on Terror. The activities at Fort Sill are not right by the American people.

Americans can make use of knowledge of the past to contextualize the Homeland Security Act of 2002 [3] and the homeland security apparatus. We can consider the behaviors of the 1947 national security apparatus after the conclusion of the Cold War and before the onset of the War on Terror. As the War on Terror concludes, we can remain vigilant and observe the activities of the 1947 and 2002 organizations.

It is difficult to visualize how some would describe to future Americans how the Department of Homeland Security, along with other Bush era policy, was prudent, responsible, or part of any new American normal. It is difficult to visualize how some would have us teach future Americans about the origins of any wholesale warrentless surveillance of the Web by the state, or any flying surveillance robots in their skies.

Americans should pay attention to the textbooks in use in their schools, to find textbook quotes interesting to them, and to make use of the Web to discuss such quotes so that we can observe such developments and add our discussions, our responses and commentaries, in addition to consumer feedback and civil discourse, as firsthand materials available to future historians.

The 1947 and 2002 legislative items under discussion sought to modify significantly the executive branch in backpage riders to military restructuring bills and bills introduced amidst times of panic.

Another important law is Posse Commitatis. After the Civil War, after Restoration, the Posse Commitatis Act was enacted in 1878. According to Wikipedia [1], some branches the Armed Forces appear to require legislative clarification about the separation of law enforcement and military. The aforementioned encyclopedia article indicates that a popularly held belief about that law, about the operation of the government, by the governed, was not actually in effect with regard to the executive branch of the United States. The encyclopedia article continues to indicate that several branches of the military have been self-regulating with regard to such matters due to a lack of clarity about the 1876 verbiage of "Army" and its applicability to the since expanded structures of the Armed Forces of the United States.

During the Bush administration, the national security apparatus and the homeland security apparatus violated the rights of Americans, the rule of law, and attempted to contact American citizens and organizations, such as telecoms, outside of legal avenues and court processes. Examples include national security letters, some of which have attempted to describe gag provisions instructing recipients not to notify their fellow citizens about the behaviors of their government. The national security letters controversies exhibit the predilections of the state for extralegal forms of contact and illustrate that lawful resistance, and courtroom processes, are achieving a restoration of normalcy.

I would like for any computer scientists or telecommunications personnel or organizations inappropriately contacted by the United States federal government, including the CIA, DHS, FBI, or NSA, to feel free to contact law enforcement, local police, to file a report, to document the incident, to contact the press, and/or make use of this and other online forums as convenient to them.

American citizens would rather interact with their federal government in transparent courts of law, exclusively. We can no longer permit the aforementioned transgressions by the state which have included requests for information about other American citizens or groups of citizens without warrants. The press has reported those and other violations of Constitutional law by the government, including by the Department of Homeland Security. There is, additionally, the recent report by the United States Senate, and there are the ongoing developments at Fort Sill.

It is unfortunate that the accurate matter to present to future Americans with regard to the history of the Internet and the Web is that they, in part, developed and became ubiquitous concurrent to a fascist regime in the United States, a War on Terror, and amidst what some have deemed the politics of terror.

Presently, some United States politicians seek to regulate the Internet and Web with rationalizations including cyberthreats and, in addition to presenting and expressing opinion and argumentation opposed to such regulation, we can take steps to ensure that our important past and present laws are more broadly discussed on Wikipedia and elsewhere, to ensure that future Americans have access to their fullest set of rights, extending naturally into cyberspace, and to ensure that future Americans have access to the philosophies of their American heritage.

Each moment is an opportunity to make critical assessments with regard to the structure, budget, and policy of our federal government, including the executive branch, and to discuss topics such as security and liberty. It is my hope, whether you agree or disagree with my comments, that you can feel comfortable exercising free speech on the Web, about topics of importance, during this election season and after.



Sincerely,

Adam Sobieski



[1] Posse Comitatus Act. (2012, October 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:53, October 12, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act&oldid=517125863


[2] National Security Act of 1947. (2012, September 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:54, October 12, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Security_Act_of_1947&oldid=513377017


[3] Homeland Security Act. (2012, April 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:55, October 12, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeland_Security_Act&oldid=489417557