On the State Of the Nation

Angelika And now a few words from me on the State of the Nation: The Senate has now ratified the anti-terrorism laws here (I briefly mentioned it in my last newsletter). The package of laws has the resounding name "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," abbreviated as U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T., so you immediately know where the wind is blowing from.

The law significantly restricts many civil rights. And although civil rights are considered sacred in America and "too much" government is deeply suspicious to every American, there were hardly any critical voices heard, neither from politicians nor from the general public. In Congress, only 66 representatives voted against the law, with 356 voting in favor. In the Senate, there was only one opposing vote against 98 supporters.

Surveillance of phones and the snooping into private emails is easily accomplished and almost entirely beyond the control of the courts. No search warrant is required to search residences, and the searches can even take place in the absence of the residents. Bank and medical confidentiality practically no longer exist, or as Senator Feingold aptly noted: If you are merely sitting on a plane with a terrorism suspect, your own medical, bank, or business records can be scrutinized. The CIA, the American foreign intelligence service, is now also spying domestically. At the slightest suspicion that foreigners might be involved in terrorist activities, it is permitted to detain them for seven days without any evidence. This new regulation also includes holders of the American Green Card. Under certain circumstances, these seven days can even be extended to six months. The civil rights organization ACLU ("American Civil Liberties Union") considers it particularly dangerous how the new law defines terrorist organizations on domestic soil. The definitions are so broad and general that cynical voices claim even Greenpeace falls into this category. The anti-terror law contains a single bright spot: the extensive surveillance of phones and computers is initially valid for only four years.

A country that prides itself on its democracy undermines it significantly with such laws. President Bush's proposal to try terrorists before a military court also contradicts the principles of a democratic constitutional state. Military courts can take place away from the public eye, and the verdict does not need to be unanimous--a two-thirds majority is sufficient. The right to freely choose one's own attorney and the possibility for appeal are limited. It is also incomprehensible that the USA is vehemently opposed to an international court. This would provide the opportunity to prosecute terrorists in the future. The Bush administration justifies its opposition by arguing that there is a risk that American citizens would also have to answer before this court. Hmmm...

Recently, the topic of torture is being discussed again in America. According to a CNN survey, 45% of Americans support the use of torture as a means of pressure to obtain information about terrorism. It's truly unbelievable. We are living in crazy times. Almost every day, we hear a new anthrax story. Just today, a 94-year-old woman in Connecticut died of anthrax inhalation. However, the FBI is still in the dark about his case. That's why, at the beginning of November, they released a profile of the possible perpetrator. I used to only see things like this in Hollywood movies: The perpetrator is most likely male. He is a loner, both at home and at work. He finds it difficult to form relationships. He is familiar with the Trenton area (some of the anthrax-infected letters were sorted in Trenton post offices). He has a scientific background or a strong interest in science. He is knowledgeable in laboratory work. In fact, he prefers test tubes to people. Perhaps he is taking antibiotics ... whether this will help in the manhunt is unknown.