Where did the freedom go?

[Ivo Skoric]

"An ascendant mafia now rules the United States, and the Prime 
Minister is in thrall to it. Together, they empty noble words - 
liberation, freedom and democracy - of their true meaning. The 
unspoken truth is that behind the bloody conquest of Iraq is the 
conquest of us all: of our minds, our humanity and our self-respect 
at the very least. If we say and do nothing, victory over us is 
assured." (John Pilger, The Independent, 4/20/03)

In the new issue of The Economist you can find a chart - circulation
of UK dailies - % change February to March: all pro-war 
newspapers are LOOSING, and Guardian and Independent are  
gaining market, giving a clear sign that literate UK public is against 
the war.

As it is all over Europe. When was the last time protesters flung a 
Molotov coctail at British embassy in Athens? When did youth in 
Germany blocked railways to prevent/slow down transport of US 
military equipment?

Europeans generally see this war as a conflict between two 
lawless states, that both do not recognize the International 
Criminal Court, that both possess undisclosed amounts of 
weapons of mass destruction, and that both use media to 
manipulate their population, with the only distinction of the US 
being infinitely more powerful and capable of projecting that force.

However, the lofty words of democracy and freedom, that the US 
administration cherish, are mostly heard as cynical mockery 
around the world.

And that despite the most advanced lying machine in the history of 
propaganda. I made a conscious decision not even to watch the 5 
networks enthralled to corporate might. 

I, actually, don't even have electricity in my NY apartment (that, 
however, is not because of my protest against capitalism, but 
because my college-educated, well-bred - unfortunately, however, 
rivaling W. in arrogance, ignorance and indolence - American 
roommate paid Con-Ed 2 months out of 12 last year). 

Maybe other people did the same. In the end Nielsen ratings may 
convince them to allow objective reporting to their journalists in 
hope to regain viewership.

Lies do not work any more. The best example for that was Iraqi 
Minister of Information. In apparent mockery of the 5 networks, he 
lied more brazenly and smoothly than them (experience counts, I 
guess), creating 'shock and awe' among their producers, who are 
currently looking for him in Iraq with job offers: man calmly said 
that there are no Americans in Bhagdad, with American tanks 
slowly rolling in his background, and he was widely grinning at the 
time. Then he disappeared.

He disappeared together with the rest of Iraqi government/military 
personnel, except for those that were killed or bribed by the 
Americans. The US had no choice but to declare a victory.

History will eventually judge them on the conduct of the war, not on 
the decision to wage the war. And so far the reports on that are 
inconclusive. It is true that advance was quick, and, indeed, far 
less bloody than expected. That was primarily because of lesson 
learned in Kosovo and Afghanistan - that bribes to local strongmen 
usually work better in wars than stealth aircraft and guided missiles.

Naturally, Iraqis are happy to have gotten rid of a brutal dictator, but 
they are not so sure whether the occupier will be less brutal. Then 
there are stories about dead unembedded journalists - those who 
died under the American fire. The Red Cross reports about piles of 
dead civilians. And the disturbing Pentagon's position that it will not 
count civilian casualties.

And the war did not even start yet. The unnerving truth is that too 
many Saddam's people (including him) just vanished into the sand. 
With time they may re-appear here and there doing bad things. 
Provoking Americans to do bad things. Making the peaceful 
rebuilding of Iraq very difficult, if not impossible.

Thus, happy end is still very far ahead (if ever). Meanwhile, what is 
happening to the US, clearly cannot be called 'liberation'. The latest 
news is Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Which reminds me very 
much of laws we had on books in former Yugoslavia, which 
happened to be a communist country. In 1985 State Security 
Service (which was basically police trained to do intelligence work, 
kind of like what 1000 NYPD officers are going to do under 
Operation Atlas, costing New York $13 millions a week - of which 
Washington will pay only for 2 weeks this year; which is why 
Bloomberg is firing thousands of municipal workers in the city - to 
pay for more and more and more police) took my passport away. 

They took it on the grounds of "protecting safety of public order and 
security of national defense". I got a pro-bono lawyer and I 
complained. The answer from the court was that police was right 
taking my passport for "protecting safety of public order and 
security of national defense" and that if the reason for that was 
"protecting safety of public order and security of national defense" 
than police did not have to disclose any further information why.

I eventually moved from Croatia to Slovenia (still in Yugoslavia), 
because Slovenia was at that time already doing things to spite 
Belgrade (federal/military authorities), and got a passport there. 
Week later I was in the US - where eventually I got an asylum. The 
immigration judge had no problems seeing the persecution in the 
actions of Yugoslav State Security Service against me. I wonder 
what the judges, and other legal professionals, then think now of 
similar laws being passed here in the US, giving FBI similar rights 
once held by communist political police?!

Because, what else does Section 215 of the Patriot Act conveys, if 
not persecution? It requires you and your organization to co-
operate with FBI in providing them confidential information about 
your clients, and it also requires you not to tell anybody anything 
about it. The only thing FBI has to show is that the investigation, 
for which your cooperation is needed, is related to clandestine 
intelligence, or international terrorism, which are both eerie, 
fearsome, and very vague formulations. (ACLU holds the view that 
Section 215 is unconstitutional)

ivo