The Roman Eagle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaius Marius (157 BC – 86 BC)—Roman leader who strengthened the connection between the people of Rome and their military by allowing all Roman citizens into the legion, regardless of social class.  This drew poorer citizens to military service with the prospect of owning land in conquered territory.  Marius decreed that the eagle standard of the Roman legion would be the symbol of the Senate and People of Rome (or Senatus Populusque Romanus SPQR).

Over two thousand years ago, Julius Caesar (100 BC – 44 BC), as Roman governor of Gaul, had almost completed Rome’s conquest of Gaul when Vercingetorix, a Gallic nobleman, organized a rebellion.  Using hit and run tactics against a superior Roman military force, Vercingetorix nearly succeeded.  Caesar defeated the Gallic rebel leader at the Siege of Alesia in 52 BC. 

Romans may have viewed the defeat of Vercingetorix as a good thing, but three years later, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river and marched on Rome to start a five year civil war.  Caesar’s military success and eventual assumption of dictatorial powers was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic.  Four years after defeating Vercingetorix, Caesar was appointed dictator, and he was appointed dictator-for-life shortly before his assassination.

The tyrant had four celebratory triumphs in Rome to boast of his military prowess.  The Roman mob, accustomed to crucifixions and other brutal displays of state power, were treated to the public strangulation of Vercingetorix six years after his surrender.  Vercingetorix was no longer a threat, but his execution was a useful reminder to the mob of the fate for those who dared to oppose the oligarchy.  Most Romans probably figured Vercingetorix was a bad man—after all, he didn’t want to be ruled by Rome. 

US and “Afpak”

Today’s Rome and Gaul are the US and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region (Afpak in now obsolete government-speak), and the US treats the Middle East as ancient Rome treated its conquered territories: as sources of commodities.[1]  And today’s Vercingetorix is Osama bin Laden.  But Americans pretend they’re unique in history, so they can’t see the parallels between American militarism and Roman imperialism.

The US does differ from ancient Rome in that Americans are a video culture isolated from reality.  Instead of a public execution of Osama bin Laden to demonstrate the brutal power of the state as Caesar did with Vercingetorix, pictures sufficed.  Michelle Bachmann and a handful of lawyer/legislators, isolated from what happens to real people, got to look at photos of the executed opponent of the US federal government.  “Our representatives” were convinced bin Laden was dead, just as an earlier hoax photograph on the Internet convinced Senator Scott Brown (R).[2] 

Today’s mob is so well-trained it was convinced by the word of its leaders without even seeing pictures.  Perhaps pictures were not released because it occurred to our rulers that pictures might cause some of the mob to have second thoughts about executing an unarmed opponent. 

Rome of Caesar’s day didn’t hesitate to shed blood to remind the populace that the state was a ruthless parent and infanticide was widely practiced.  Today, the US pretends to be a gentle Big Brother with only the people’s welfare as its concern.  Beneath the pretense, the US government is just as brutal to those who refuse to submit to its power.

The most recent version of the story of bin Laden’s death released by the US government was that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed.[3]  Stories also said bin Laden’s wives were held for questioning.  But why murder bin Laden when he could have been taken prisoner?  If bin Laden was still a threat, wouldn’t he be more useful alive?  Why pretend to ask his wives what he was thinking after he was executed?  Unless you don’t really care about the answers?  Or unless the US still isn’t telling the truth? 

President Obama (D) told Americans that he had conferred with former President George W. Bush (R) after the execution.   Bush, interviewed later about his reaction to the news of the death of an enemy to the state, praised the fighting spirit of US government warriors, just as Julius Caesar had when writing of his soldiers who fought for booty in the Gallic Wars.[4] [5]  Bush, obviously pleased by the SEALs’ attitude, related a conversation he’d had with a SEAL Team Six warrior:

"I met SEAL Team Six in Afghanistan. They are awesome, skilled, talented and brave," he added. "I said, 'I hope you have everything you need. One guy said, 'We need your permission to go into Pakistan and kick ass.'" 

That’s just how our leaders like it: warriors completely loyal to our dog pack and completely oblivious to the US Constitution.

Standing behind a podium with the symbol of Rome, the golden eagle, prominently displayed upon it, President Obama announced bin Laden’s execution to the cheering mob (video and video).[6]

Of course Obama is no Caesar, no dictator for life.  Today’s news cycles are much shorter.  But even if Obama doesn’t win re-election, he’ll have been in control longer and with much more power than “tyrant-for-life” Julius Caesar.[7]  As the US government continues down a path similar to that of the Roman Republic, so too does the American mob, as it continues to embrace the power of the military.

__________________________________

[1] “Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan,” Declan Walsh, May 9, 2011, The Guardian, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal on May 23, 2011).

A former US official explains US-Pakistan relations (keep your people in line or we will):

“The former US official said that impetus for the co-operation, much like the Bin Laden deal, was driven by the US. "It didn't come from Musharraf's desire. On the Predators, we made it very clear to them that if they weren't going to prosecute these targets, we were, and there was nothing they could do to stop us taking unilateral action.

“’We told them, over and again: “We'll stop the Predators if you take these targets out yourselves.”’”

[2] “Bachmann, other lawmakers see bin Laden photos; convinced ‘we got our man’,”  Dan Farber, Lucy Madison, CBS News, May 12, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062269-503544.html May 23, 2011).

[3] “SEAL helmet cams recorded entire bin Laden raid,” By David Martin, May 12, 2011, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/eveningnews/main20062410.shtml on May 23, 2011).

[4] “George W. Bush Gives First Public Reaction to Osama Bin Laden Death,” By DEVIN DWYER, May 13, 2011, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reacts-publicly-osama-bin-laden-death/story?id=13592860 on May 22, 2011).

[5] Julius Caesar related similar sympathies in his troops during a siege in Gaul (from Commentaries on the war in Gaul, book 7, chapters 14-31):

“Things were so serious, in fact, that for several days the men had no grain at all and managed to avoid starvation only by bringing in cattle from distant villages.

“But even so, no one uttered a word that was unworthy of the greatness of Rome or of the victories they had already won. Indeed, when I went round and spoke to the men of each legion as they worked, saying that I would raise the siege if they were finding their privations too much to bear, every man of them begged me not to. They had now served under me, they said, for many years without ever losing their good name or anywhere abandoning a task they had once begun. They would be disgraced if they gave up the siege they had started, and they would rather endure any hardship than fail to avenge the Roman citizens who had been killed at Orleans through the treachery of the Gauls. They made these same feelings known to the centurions and military tribunes, with requests that they should pass them on to me.”

Caesar’s rewarded his soldiers with slaves, plunder, booty, and bonuses in addition to their regular pay.

[6] At a bipartisan Congressional Dinner the day after his announcement, Obama decries the loss of the unity that was experienced immediately after 9-11.  Having a common enemy is a useful distraction for the mob and the oligarchs who rule them:

“I know that that unity that we felt on 9/11 has frayed a little bit over the years, and I have no illusions about the difficulties of the debates that we’ll have to be engaged in, in the weeks and months to come…And so tonight, it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face.”

[7] Caesar was assassinated one month after he was declared “dictator for life.”

Doublethink (Part 6)

“On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.”  

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 1, p. 5 by George Orwell.[1]

Millimeter wave body scanner images

“One by one they passed in front of me, teachers, friends, others, all those I had been afraid of, all those I once could have laughed at, all those I had lived with over the years.  They went by, fallen, dragging their packs, dragging their lives, deserting their homes, the years of their childhood, cringing like beaten dogs.

“They passed without a glance in my direction…

“‘When is our turn coming?’ I asked my father.”

Elie Wiesel describes the move of his Hungarian neighbors from a Jewish ghetto to a Nazi death camp in 1944.[2]

Our Turn Is Coming

During the Bush (R) administration we heard a lot about the prisoners at Guantanamo.  During the Obama (D) administration we hear little about overseas renderings of Islamic persons and the assassination of US citizens—they’re labeled Moslem fanatics, so it’s ok.  Most Americans today are preoccupied with Obamacare, home foreclosures, and their next paycheck, and don’t pay much attention.

The National Security Agency (NSA) goes overboard with warrantless searches, but most Americans rationalize that they’ve got nothing to hide and ignore the stories.  Besides, we have a Constitutional Law Professor for President and he agrees with the policy.  Three days after assuming office in 2009:

“The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.”[3]

Something most Americans can’t ignore as easily are the intrusions of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), the bureaucracy created in a knee jerk response to the 9/11 blowback of 2001.

By mid-September 2004, during the Bush administration, the TSA put in place a policy of “physical frisking” of selected airline passengers before they boarded an airplane.  Immediately after the policy change there were complaints by women who had been “physically frisked” at the airport:

• Singer and actress Patty Lupone described an airline security screener who demanded that LuPone remove her shirt. After protesting, LuPone complied, “revealing a thin, see-through camisole.”  According to Lupone, the screener "was all over me with her hands," touching areas including her groin and breasts.
• Advertising executive Lu Chekowsky said, "routinely, my breasts are being cupped, my behind is being felt."
• “Nancy Jackson, president of a global company in New York that sells interior finishes…has also learned not to express her objections.  ‘If you do,’ she said, ‘They really feel you up, and then check every section of your wallet and every item in your carry-on, including your makeup and toiletries; it's disgusting.’"[4]

Backscatter X-ray Body Scanner Images

TSA Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Program

By 2007 the TSA introduced two types of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) airport body scanners at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport to use as a secondary screen on passengers arbitrarily selected for secondary screening: X-ray backscatter scanners and millimeter wave scanners.[5][6]  X-ray backscatter scanners use low-energy X-rays to snoop beneath passengers' clothing.  Millimeter wave scanners  produces images using radio waves, not X-rays.  A smiling TSA bureaucrat demonstrated the backscatter scanner and the virtues of a full body scan: no more groping frisks as the TSA keeps us all “safe.”

On Christmas Day 2009, after the "underwear bomber" intelligence failure, the Obama administration accelerated the deployment of new airport scanners to look beneath travelers' clothes to spot weapons or explosives.  A $215 million proposal by the Obama administration called for the purchase of 500 more machines in addition to the 450 already purchased.[7]  Half of the machines would be X-ray backscatter scanners and the other half would be millimeter wave scanners.

According to TSA plans, by late 2011, nearly 1000 body scanners will be looking under airline passengers' clothing in nearly half of US airport checkpoints.  Across the US, two out of every three passengers will be “asked” to step into one of the new machines for a six-second head-to-toe scan before boarding.

Safety Concerns about X-ray Backscatter Scanners

Most Americans willingly walk through airport scanners, trusting that the federal government has their best interests at heart.  Most air travelers don’t ask about safety and what testing has been done on the scanners—they trust Big Brother.  The state wouldn’t knowingly hurt civilians would it?[8]   

As body scanner usage becomes widespread at airport and public facilities, scientists at Columbia University question whether the risks of skin cancer have been adequately studied.  Scientists at the University of California also questioned “the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated.”  They called for more study of the X-ray body scanners in an April 6, 2010 "Letter of Concern" (pdf) to John Holdren, the president's science adviser:

"The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.”[10]

The UC letter asked for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing millions of people to X-ray body scanners, and listed concerns about x-ray testing:

• increased risks to people over 65
• increased risks to fraction of females more likely to develop breast cancer
• increased risk for sperm mutagenesis
• increased risk of cancer to immune-compromised individuals
• risk to unborn when scanning pregnant women
• risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents
• unknown effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus
• potential for equipment malfunction delivering increased radiation doses.

Don’t worry, Big Brother says the X-ray body scanners are safe: it meets the guidelines of the American National Standards Institute for the amount of radiation emitted.  What Big Brother doesn’t tell you:

“…guess who was on the committee that developed the guidelines for the X-ray scanners? Representatives from the companies that make the machines and the Department of Homeland Security, among others. In other words, the machines passed a test developed, in part, by the companies that manufacture them and the government agency that wants to use them.”[11]

Who Watches the Watchers?

“Millimeter wave uses electromagnetic waves to generate an image based on the energy reflected from the body. It passes harmless electromagnetic waves over the human body to create a robotic image...

“Passenger privacy is ensured through the anonymity of the image: The officer attending the passenger will not view the image, and as an additional precaution, the officer viewing the image will be remotely located and the image won't be stored, transmitted or printed, and deleted immediately once viewed. In fact, the machines have zero storage capability.”  TSA press release November 14, 2008[12]  

According to TSA pronouncements to the public, millimeter wave body scanners make unrecognizable “robotic images” of travelers.  According to the TSA, your privacy is protected because:

1. The “robotic images” aren’t recognizable because of a privacy filter.  The TSA doesn’t tell the public that they can change the settings of the privacy filter, but the TSA wouldn’t change the settings to show more detail would it?
2. And if the images were recognizable—which they aren’t of course, because the privacy filter makes them “robotic images,” and the TSA wouldn’t change the privacy filter settings—the TSA officer looking at them won’t be in the same room to see the person scanned.
3. And if the images were recognizable—which they aren’t because the TSA wouldn’t change the privacy filter settings after they demonstrated how “robotic” the image is to the news media—the image can’t be stored. 
4. And if the images were recognizable and stored—both of which, according to public announcements by the TSA, cannot happen—it’s only on one machine, and it’s a “robotic image”—the machines aren’t networked, so the images can’t be transmitted.
5. And if the images were recognizable, stored, and networked—which of course they aren’t and can’t be—remember, it’s only a “robotic image” because of the privacy filter.

Thus “passenger privacy is ensured” by the TSA.

At least that’s what the TSA wants you to think.  They want you to ignore the evidence that body scans are “virtual strip-searches” as AIT scanners record full-frontal nudity (video).  Introduction of the scanners in Great Britain raised concerns that the scanners violated child pornography laws there by making images of naked children.[13]

In America, Big Brother lies about privacy concerns to willing double-thinkers.  Introducing the AIT scanners at JFK airport on October 21, 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declined to demonstrate a “robotic image” of her package in one of the devices, and you can be sure she wasn’t frisked either.  That didn’t stop her from chanting the TSA litany for all the robots who would be stepping through the machines:

"Those who read the images are not actually physically at the gate, so they cannot associate an image with an individual person at all…

"And the machines are set so that no image is retained."[14]

In the Daily News video embedded with the online article about Napolitano at JFK, TSA Assistant Administrator for Security Operations Lee Kair regurgitated the other part of the TSA litany by noting that the image is “more like a chalk etching, not like a photograph,” because of the privacy filters built in to the scanner.

The TSA has repeatedly claimed that the scanners are incapable of storing or transmitting the naked images of scanned travelers.  The TSA website on Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) states:

“Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer.” 

Why would an image need to be “automatically deleted” from the system if the system can’t store the image?

What the TSA Doesn’t Tell You

According to TSA public announcements, the millimeter wave body scanners create a “robotic image” and have zero storage capability for that image.  The US Marshall service uses the same device and admits it stored 35,000 images on a body scanner used at a Florida courthouse checkpoint.[15]  A letter from the TSA to the Congressional chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security also contradicts the “zero storage capability” public statement:

“AIT has the ability to store and transmit data; however, the only locations where the functionalities of storage and data transmission are enabled are at the testing and development sites: TSIF, TSL, and TML.” - February 24, 2010 letter (pdf)  from the Acting Administrator of the TSA to the Congressional chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Page 5 of the 70-page TSA procurement specification (pdf) for the scanners states that the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data (raw and reconstructed)" over the network.

Page 5 of the specification (pdf) also states that the scanners shall have “a means to multiplex images, allowing up to 64 IOCPs (Image Operator Control Panels) to receive images from up to 64 WBI (Whole Body Imager) systems utilizing the network requirements set forth in section 3.1.1.3.6.”  Section 3.1.1.3.6 is titled “Network Interface.”  Does any of that sound like the scanners can be networked to you?

Page 5 of the specification (pdf) also says that the scanner will have "image filters to protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."  These filters create the “robotic image” or the “chalklike etchings.”  The specification also states that “Enabling and disabling of image filtering shall be modifiable.”  Why does the TSA tell the public about the privacy filter, but neglect to mention they can change it?

But don’t worry about all of those details.  They’re Big Brother’s concern.  What the TSA wants you to remember is:

“…all full-body scanners have ‘strong privacy protections in place’ and are delivered to airports ‘without the capability to store, print or transmit images.’"  Anonymous TSA official[16]

What they do not want you to notice is that Janet Napolitano wouldn’t step into one of the new AIT scanners to demonstrate it.

The US Constitution Doesn’t Apply

Worried about your 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizures?  Relax, according to the Big Brother there’s no need to concern yourself.  The federal government maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:

“Such searches are prophylactic in nature and designed to advance the vital goal of protecting the public, rather than being focused on criminal law enforcement and directed at apprehending specific suspects; they do not require either a warrant or individualized suspicion.” – Pp. 5-6 of DOJ response (pdf) to a case brought against TSA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).[17]

According to Big Brother, your 4th Amendment protections don’t apply.  The TSA is searching everyone indiscriminately—"prophylactically.”  If they violate everyone’s rights, they’re not discriminating.  It’s ok!  And don’t forget, the TSA performs a “crucial function”:

"The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events." – P. 9 of DOJ response (pdf) to a case brought against TSA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

To further reassure yourself, keep in mind that the “TSA respects the fundamental values of individual autonomy and privacy” and will “allow” you to have your crotch groped by a TSA official if you don’t want to walk through a body scanner when asked:

“Furthermore, TSA respects the fundamental values of individual autonomy and privacy by allowing individuals to request an alternative method of screening (a pat down search) if they choose to do so, and by ensuring – contrary to petitioners’ assertion – that AIT images will not be stored, transmitted or otherwise misused.” – P. 6 of DOJ response (pdf) to a case brought against TSA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

What are the watchers up to while they’re watching over you?  Among other things, they’re robbing you as they rifle your luggage, ogling you if you have large breasts or a small penis, and otherwise sexually and physically harassing you.[18]

But Big Brother wants to put your mind at ease.  The TSA is keeping you safe from all of those terrorists who hate your freedoms.

Freedom is Slavery

Some people, insufficiently cowed, refuse to be virtually strip-searched.  Some “voluntarily comply” by “choosing to be frisked,” so the TSA has responded with a new palms-down policy for frisking to discourage anyone from refusing a body scan before boarding an airplane.

One victim of the groping described it this way:

“It was extremely invasive. This was a very probing-type touching - not just patting over all your areas, but actually probing and pushing and seeing if I was concealing something in my genital area.”[19]

Now air travelers can “freely choose” to stand in front of X-ray backscatter scanners of questionable safety, or millimeter wave scanners to be virtually strip searched, or instead have their privates fondled with the new palms-down frisking policy, all in the name of keeping us safe.

The state prosecutes sexual assaults by subway gropers and peeping toms for violating the rights of individuals.  But we’re supposed to thank the state as it sexually assaults air travelers and says it’s for the traveler’s own good.[20]  Drone-like, Americans say, “Yes, fondle my wife’s breasts—or take a picture of my daughter’s.  And thank-you for protecting the hive.”

This constant monitoring isn’t unique to airports.  Our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches are violated practically every time we leave our homes.  It’s happening with scanners at bus stations (video), metal detectors at government buildings and public events, and cameras on street corners.  Unfortunately, frightened Americans now think it’s reasonable to empty their pockets when they walk into buildings, and to be groped or virtually strip-searched at the airport by any federal agent in a uniform.

What’s particularly intrusive about body scanners and frisking is both practices push the limits of state control to the point where the state owns even our right to be clothed to protect the privacy of our own bodies.  What do we own if not our own bodies?  With body scanners, the state arrogates the right to strip and grope you whenever it wants.

There’s no hiding when Big Brother is watching you.

What’s Next?

“If it keeps us safe, I’m all for it.” – An American sheep responding to questions about the latest federal incursion (pick one) on his/her liberties.

Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano wants air travelers watched around the world.  At a Montreal meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), she urged other countries “to move to the next stage of screening”:

The U.S. Homeland Security chief will urge 190 nations today to improve aviation security with body scanners and other innovations to stop terrorists from carrying plastic and powdered explosives onto airplanes.[21]

What other innovations does Napolitano refer to?  Plastic gloves for checking rectums now that terrorists carry explosives there?

Americans already willingly spread their legs, raise their arms in surrender, and submit to virtual strip searches and real gropes.  When Big Brother asks, most double-thinking “free” Americans won’t give it a second thought before they bend over.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 5.

[2] Night, Elie Wiesel, Bantam Books, Inc., 1982, pp. 14-15.

[3] “Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case,” By David Kravets, Wired, January 22, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/ on Oct. 19, 2010).

[4] “Many Women Say Airport Pat-Downs Are a Humiliation,” By JOE SHARKEY, NY Times, November 23, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/business/23grope.html?pagewanted=print&position= on Sept. 27, 2010).

[5] “Revealing X-ray machine set to scan Sky Harbor fliers,” Ginger D. Richardson, Arizona Republic, Feb. 23, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0223backscatter0223.html on Oct. 22, 2010).

[6] “Full-Body Scanner Begins Tests at Phoenix Airport,” October 11, 2007, AP, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301160,00.html on Oct. 21, 2010).

[7] “Airport-security plan calls for 500 body scanners in '11,” By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY, 2/3/2010, (Accessed at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-02-02-body-scanner_N.htm on Oct. 4, 2010).

[8] Would the federal government knowingly hurt people?  They’re not like the Nazis who experimented on concentration camp prisoners are they?

Consider:

• Tuskegee experiments
• Unethical human experimentation in the US
• Syphilis experiments in Guatemala by US[9]
• Collateral damage in any war.

[9] “U.S. Apologizes for Syphilis Tests in Guatemala,” By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., NY Times, October 1, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html?_r=1&th&emc=th on Oct. 2, 2010).

[10] “Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners,” by Richard Knox, May 17, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083 on July 21, 2010).

[11] “Are Scanners Worth the Risk?” By SUSAN STELLIN, NY Times, September 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/travel/12prac.html on Oct. 3, 2010).

[12] “TSA Launches Millimeter Wave Technology in Richmond,” TSA Press Release, Nov. 14, 2008, (Accessed at http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2008/1114.shtm on Oct. 24, 2010).

[13] “New scanners break child porn laws,” Alan Travis, Guardian, 4 January 2010, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws on Oct. 24, 2010).

[14] “Body scanners unveiled at JFK Airport; Homeland Security Sect. Janet Napolitano doesn't volunteer,” BY Christina Boyle, DAILY NEWS, October 22nd 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_body_scanners_unveiled_at_jfk_airport_homeland_security_sect_janet_napolitano_do.html on Oct. 27, 2010).

At 1:50 in the Daily News video, the woman Image Operator (IO) operating the scanner inadvertently shows the ability of the machine to show more resolution when she scans over the left foot of the scanned image for an instant.  (This capability is more apparent in this video.)  She immediately moves the cursor as this capability contradicts Asst. Administrator Kair’s statements.

[15] “Feds admit they stored body scanner images, despite TSA claim the images cannot be saved,” NY Daily News, BY Aliyah Shahid, August 4th 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_feds_admit_they_stored_body_scanner_images_despite_tsa_claim_the_images_cannot_b.html?obref=obnetwork on Oct. 22, 2010).

[16] “Body scanners can store, send images, group says,” By Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers, CNN, January 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/  on Oct. 24, 2010).

[17] “Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images,” by Declan McCullagh, CNET, August 4, 2010, (Accessed at http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html on Oct. 3, 2010).

[18] In Florida: “TSA Screener Cited "Torture" In Scanner Case; Arrestee's genitalia was exposed by "full body" device,” Smoking Gun, (Accessed at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/tsa-screener-cited-torture-scanner-case on Sept. 24, 2010).

In Philadelphia: “Another flier's run-in with the TSA,” by Daniel Rubin, The Inquirer, June 14, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/96273368.html?&subscribe=y&listID=1782 on Oct. 22, 2010).

In Seattle: “Former TSA supervisor admits stealing luggage,” Aug. 16, 2010, Huffington Post, (Accessed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100816/us-tsa-supervisor-theft/ on Oct. 22, 2010).

In Great Britain: “Airport Worker Pervs Over Woman In Body Scanner: ‘I Love Those Gigantic Tits’,” Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, March 24, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.prisonplanet.com/airport-worker-pervs-over-woman-in-body-scanner-look-at-those-gigantic-tits.html on July 21, 2010).

In Nigeria: “Now showing at MMIA: Nude images of passengers; Security officials gather and giggle at naked travelers in body scanner,” By Chinedu Eze , 09.20.2010, (Accessed at http://odili.net/news/source/2010/sep/21/232.html on Sept. 30, 2010).

“They use the machines, installed in the wake of the Farouk AbdulMutallab affair, to watch the naked images of female passengers for fun.

“The controversial body scanners have been dubbed "e-stripping" in advanced countries because of the way they expose the nakedness of those being screened.

“THISDAY discovered that during off-peak periods, the aviation security officials, who are trained on the use of the scanners, usually stroll from the cubicle located in a hidden corner on the right side of the screening area where the 3D full-body scanner monitors are located.

“They do so to catch a glimpse of some of the passengers entering the machine and immediately go back to view the naked images, in order to match the faces with the images since the faces are blurred on the monitors while passengers are inside the machine.

“The face that appears on the scanner's monitor is usually blurred so that the operator viewing the full body will not recognise who passes through the machine.

“But by coming out to see the passenger in person and then going back to see his or her image, the objective of protecting the privacy of the passenger has been defeated.”

[19] “New Logan searches blasted TSA tests frisky frisking policy,” By Donna Goodison, Boston Herald, August 21, 2010, (Accessed at http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1276131 on Oct. 20, 2010).

“Passengers shocked by new touchy-feely TSA screening,” By Donna Goodison, Boston Herald, August 24, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20100823passengers_shocked_by_new_touchy-feely_tsa_screening/srvc=business&position=also on Oct. 21, 2010).

“Airline passengers from coast to coast are decrying the Transportation Security Administration’s more aggressive body searches, calling screeners’ new front-of-the-hand, slide-down technique not only invasive but an example of Big Brother run amok.
"Rob Webster said he was subjected to a head-to-toe body search that ‘did not miss an inch’ and even included a “probing and pushing” of his genital area when flying home from Las Vegas to Seattle last week.
“’If anybody ever groped me like that in real life, I would have punched them in their nose,’ the 50-year-old said. ‘It was extremely invasive. This was a very probing-type touching - not just patting over all your areas, but actually probing and pushing and seeing if I was concealing something in my genital area.’”

[20] “Breast Exams at the Airport: Do the New Security Measures Go Too Far?” By SHERRY F. COLB, Findlaw, Dec. 01, 2004, (Accessed at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20041201.html on Sept. 27, 2010).

“The hunches of security personnel (the reliability of whose hunches is nowhere evident) are now enough to subject people to what would otherwise constitute a sexual assault, that is, a nonconsensual touching of breasts and/or groin, as a condition for innocent non-suspects traveling freely around the country and internationally. ”

[21] “Napolitano pitches plan for air security to 190 nations,” By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY, 28 Sept. 2010, (Accessed at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-09-28-1Anapolitano28_ST_N.htm on Sept. 30, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 4)

“The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother — it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals.”   

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 2, p. 24 by George Orwell.[1]

Remembering 9/11

On September 11th, 2010 across the US, Americans commemorated the anniversary of 9/11  with US flags, speeches, flowers floating in reflecting pools, and patriotic songs.  The President spoke at the Pentagon, and his wife, with her predecessor, spoke at Shanksville, Pa.  There was also the obligatory anti-Moslem controversy over the mosque at the World Trade Center site, and the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.[2]

Our rulers can’t let us forget “the day America changed forever” because they use the terror of that day to justify invading two nations and seizing more power here at home by tightening the chains on American citizens.  The US government, like Orwell’s Big Brother, keeps its citizens’ “ferocity… turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals.”

US is in a State of National Emergency

With the remembrances of the victims comes the continual reminder of an evil that killed nearly 3,000 US civilians.  The US has been in a state of National Emergency since September 14, 2001 because of it.  President Obama quietly extended the state of National Emergency for its 10th year.  He conveniently notified Congress on September 10th, when most Americans are distracted with upcoming September 11th memorials.[3] 

If anyone even chanced to notice the quiet departure of more of our liberties amidst all the patriotic memorializing of the nearly 3,000 Americans victims, who would dare question the President?

Be Afraid

Our rulers want us to “rally round the flag” while looking outwards for foreign enemies.  They want us terrified so that we ignore, or even support, their removal of many of our freedoms  over the last nine years.  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano marked the ninth anniversary of 9/11 in New York vowing to keep up the fight against terrorists:

“We can’t guarantee there won’t be another successful terrorist attack.  The threats we face are evolving, and enemies like Al Qaeda and its affiliates are determined. … Today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, I can pledge to you this: We will do everything in our power to prevent attacks and to prepare ourselves.”[4]

They need us to be afraid.  They need us to stay fearful and support wars in foreign countries:

• They need us to support the war in Afghanistan which Obama escalated to fight al Qaeda terrorism. 
• They need us to support the war as they move it to Pakistan. 
• They need us to support it as they try to move it to Iran.
• They need us to be afraid despite CIA chief Leon Panetta’s estimate that there are no more than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.[5]

Terrorism vs. Collateral Damage

Why do you think we’re repeatedly reminded of the nearly 3,000 US civilians killed on 9/11, but not that the US military killed more than 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan in the first six months of what is now a nine-year war to avenge the deaths of 9/11?[6][7]

Why is it that when Americans civilians are killed, they’re victims of terrorism and when foreign civilians are killed, they’re merely collateral damage?

Is it possible that people who lose family members to “collateral damage” might get angry enough to become “terrorists”?  Who then fathers terrorism?

12-year old Ali, an Iraqi victim of US rockets in 2003, wasn’t terrorized, just damaged collaterally.[8]

Can you see a difference between terrorism and collateral damage?  If you can, you’re on your way to understanding doublethink as well as Syme, a character in Nineteen Eighty-Four: 

“'Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’

“One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 5, p. 47 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 24.

[2] “On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Rifts Amid Mourning,” By ANNE BARNARD and MANNY FERNANDEZ, NY Times, September 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/nyregion/12sept11.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on Sept. 24, 2010).

[3] “Letter from the President on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks,” Sept. 10, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/10/letter-president-continuation-national-emergency-with-respect-certain-te on Sept. 24, 2010).

September 10, 2010

Dear Madam Speaker:    (Dear Mr. President:)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

                       Sincerely,

                       BARACK OBAMA

[4] “Janet Napolitano vows to keep up fight,” By MIKE ALLEN, 9/10/10, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41967.html on Sept. 24, 2010).

[5] “New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered,” By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times, June 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html on Sept. 25, 2010).

Apparently if 50-100 al Qaeda is an acceptable justification for escalation of the war in Afghanistan, Panetta estimated 300 al Qaeda in Pakistan to justify US drones in Pakistan.  (Shades of Cambodia and Laos in the 1970s…)

If you’re ready for triple-think:  “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the ‘Arc of Crisis’ Part I,” by Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, September 5, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAR20100905&articleId=20907 on Sept. 24, 2010).

[6] “Tighter Rules Fail to Stem Deaths of Innocent Afghans at Checkpoints,” By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr., NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1 on September 21, 2010).

[7] “US forces 'kill 8 children' in night raid on village in Afghanistan,” Scotsman, 31 December 2009, By JEROME STARKEY in KABUL, (Accessed at http://news.scotsman.com/world/US-forces-kill-8-children.5947753.jp on Sept. 21, 2010).

[8] “Blood Brothers,” By TOM NEWTON DUNN, The Sun, 03 Apr 2010, (Accessed at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2919198/Victims-of-Iraq-war-meet-amputee-British-soldiers.html on Sept. 30, 2010).

Then twelve year old Ali, is now 19 and adjusted to his life without arms.  His doctor thought he would die within weeks after the rocket attack that killed most of his family (his aunt survived).  I’ve quoted liberally from the article in the New Yorker as I’m sure it will be instructive in distinguishing the vast difference between victims of terrorism and those who are merely “collateral damage”:

“Dr. Saleh stopped to talk briefly with three European doctors from Médecins Sans Frontières, the nongovernmental organization that had been in Iraq for several weeks, assisting Iraqi doctors.

“One of Dr. Saleh’s assistants, a young woman, had pulled some images up on a computer screen in his office. Dr. Saleh invited me to look at them with him. The first image the assistant showed us was of a boy lying naked in the emergency operating theatre. A catheter and tube was attached to his penis. The child’s legs were smooth, but his entire torso was black, and his arms were horribly burned. At about the biceps, the flesh of both arms became charred, black grotesqueries. One of his hands was a twisted, melted claw. His other arm had apparently been burned off at the elbow, and two long bones were sticking out of it. It looked like something that might be found in a barbecue pit.

“The child’s face was covered by an anesthesia mask. ‘This is Ali,’ Dr. Saleh said. ‘He is twelve. He was wounded in a rocket attack the night before last in the southeastern part of Baghdad, about fifteen minutes from here. Ali lost his mother, his father, and his six brothers and sisters. Four homes were destroyed; in one of them, the whole family was killed, eight people.’

“It was hard to imagine that the person in the photograph could be alive, but Dr. Saleh said that Ali was still conscious. ‘I don’t think he will survive, though,’ he said in a flat tone. ‘These burned people have complications after three or four days; in the first week they usually get septicemia.’ His assistant was pulling up new images on her monitor. They showed Ali again, on the same bed and in the same position as before, but this time without his charred appendages. Both arms had been amputated, and the stumps were wrapped in white bandages. His torso was covered in some kind of clear grease. The mask had been removed from his face, and he appeared to be sleeping. He had a beautiful head, with the feminine features of a prepubescent boy. In another picture, Ali was awake, staring at the camera with large, expressionless eyes.

“Dr. Saleh’s assistant breathed in sharply and put one hand over her mouth. Then she brought up some images of Ali’s family just after the bodies had arrived at the hospital’s morgue. It was difficult to make out what had once been human beings. Cloth stuck to the bodies, bits of bold red-and-green fabric with flower designs. There seemed to be some straw mixed in, and I asked Dr. Saleh if they had been farming people. He said yes, and pointed out Ali’s mother. Her face had been cut in half, as if by a giant cleaver, and her mouth was yawning open. In other pictures, which Dr. Saleh said were of Ali’s father and a younger sister, all I could see was a macabre collection of charred body parts and some red flesh. The body of his brother was all there, it seemed, but from the nose up his head was gone, simply sheared off, like the head of a rubber doll. His mouth, like that of his mother, was open, as if he were screaming.

“‘Have you seen enough?’ the assistant asked me quietly. I didn’t say anything, so she showed me more pictures. After a few minutes of this, Dr. Saleh said, ‘O.K. This is just part of the tragedy.’ He asked me if I wanted to see Ali.

“I followed Dr. Saleh to the burn unit, where some men helped us on with green smocks, face masks, gauzy hair nets, and shoe coverings. Then we walked down a bare and quiet hall that reminded me of a prison corridor. The only thing on the walls was a framed portrait of Saddam Hussein. Dr. Saleh opened a door and we went into a small room where an older woman in a black abaya, Ali’s aunt, was sitting in a chair. A tiny window in the far wall of the room let in some sunlight. The aunt was sitting next to a bed on wheels that had a hooplike structure over it. Dr. Saleh carefully pulled back a coarse gray blanket, and I saw Ali’s naked chest, his bandaged stumps, and his face. His large eyes were hazel, flecked with green. He had long eyelashes and wavy brown hair. I didn’t know what to say.

“Dr. Saleh asked Ali how he felt. ‘O.K.,’ he said. Wasn’t he in a lot of pain, I said to Dr. Saleh, in a whisper. I spoke in English. ‘No,’ he replied. ‘Deeply burned patients don’t feel much pain because of the damage to their nerves.’ I stared at Ali, who looked back at me and at Dr. Saleh. His aunt got up and stood behind the head of the bed. She said nothing.

“I asked Dr. Saleh to ask Ali what he was thinking about. Ali spoke for a moment in Arabic, in a boy’s soft, high-pitched voice. ‘He doesn’t think of anything, and he doesn’t remember anything,’ Dr. Saleh said. He explained that Ali did not know that his family was dead. I asked Ali about school. He was in the sixth grade, he said, and his favorite subject was geography. As he spoke, his aunt stroked his hair. Did he like sports? Yes, he replied, especially volleyball, and also soccer…

“…Dr. Saleh rubbed his eyes and cleared his throat several times. We went back to his office, and he washed his face in a sink. ‘So it’s untrue what they say about doctors being able to suspend their emotions,’ I said.

“He looked at me. His eyes were pink. ‘We are human beings,’ he replied. He explained that Ali knew that he had lost his arms, but that he had not acknowledged it yet: ‘He is conscious. He can see the stumps.’ Ali would likely die within three weeks.”[9]

[9] “Letter from Baghdad, War Wounds; Bombs fall and the lights go out” by Jon Lee Anderson, New Yorker, April 14, 2003, (Accessed at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/14/030414fa_fact1?currentPage=all on Oct 1, 2010).

Teachable Moments

"...an important key to teaching children ethical behavior is learning to recognize teachable moments through which your children can develop the habit of being aware of ethical challenges." Steven Carr Reuben

On September 8, 2009, President Obama (D) gave a motivational speech to schoolchildren across America. Many Rs were unhappy that the President used his office to talk to school children. Do you think they were as upset when George H.W. Bush (R) addressed public school students on October 1991? Do you think Ds demanded a special GAO probe of President Obama as they did in 1991 when they ordered a special probe by the GAO in response to Bush's speech?

The President's message was one of personal responsibility. He called on students to stay in school and take personal responsibility for getting their education. The message was one that a parent might deliver to a child, and some parents were upset about the President assuming this role. A news commenter in this NBC video, revealed his bias, declaring that parents who were upset about Obama speaking to their public school children "aren't smart enough" to raise them. One thing is obvious, those parents aren't smart enough to realize that they're supposed to love Big Brother.

To help students benefit from an address by their leader, the Department of Education prepared an online letter with some classroom activities for school teachers about President Obama's speech. One of the Department of Education-prepared discussion questions (pdf) for pre-K through grade 6 students included these questions:

• Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

Both of these questions start with one extra word which prejudices the question, presenting a false choice to the student.

Department of Education discussion questions (pdf) for grades 7 through 12 included two questions that started with one extra word to prejudice the student by presenting a false choice again:

• How will he inspire us?
• How will he challenge us?

The following Department of Education discussion question stresses the apparent main point of the President's speech:

• We heard President Obama mention the importance of personal responsibility. In your life, who exemplifies this kind of responsibility? How? Give examples.

Here are some additional questions for parents and teachers to consider:

• What article in the US Constitution authorizes a department of Education?
• Where was "personal responsibility" when the President and Congress forced taxpayers to bail out the banks?
• Where was "personal responsibility" when the President and Congress forced taxpayers to bail out automakers?
• Where is the "personal responsibility" when the planned healthcare reform forces taxpayers to pay for all citizens to have health insurance?
• When the President ended his speech he said:

"I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn."

Does he mean he's taking personal responsibility and spending his own money to pay for all the things a student needs to learn? Or was he channeling Ted Kennedy?

And finally, an extra credit question for all Americans:

How does President Obama inspire children to learn personal responsibility when the policies of his administration reward the irresponsibility of some at the expense of others?

Have You Heard the One About the Constitution?

The old joke behind the Iron Curtain before the Soviet Union fell apart was: They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. The American version is: US citizens pretend the Constitution is valid, and Congress pretends to follow it.

In grade school, we're told we are a nation under the rule of law and, as the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution protects the rights of the states and our rights as individuals.

Outside of the classroom, we might be aware as each branch of government continually erodes our Constitutionally-protected freedoms. Recent examples are:

• the Supreme Court Kelo decision,
• Congressional lapses such as the Patriot Act and the various bailouts in vogue,
• sundry Executive intrusions big and small including denial of habeas corpus in the US and at the Guantanamo detention camp, and the 1997 Gore telephone tax.

These get short-lived media play and US citizens gradually forget about them as Big Brother, aka the federal government, grows in power.

The "Constitutional issues" that hold the attention of the media and the public are "safe" issues, mainly R and D bickering. The bickering leads some to think the Constitution is more of a nuisance, something to be gotten around, and not a document that defines and intentionally constrains the federal government.

The most recent noise about Hilary Clinton's (D) qualification for a cabinet office is the latest of the "safe" Constitutional issues that excite the two dominant parties written about nowhere in the Constitution, as they squabble about who is king of the hill for the day.

Recent examples of the "safe" use of the Constitution by one party to harass the other:

• Obama (D) is not a legitimate candidate for President per Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (Arnold is watching this carefully).
• Clinton (D) impeached per Article I Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, but not convicted for lying about semi-consummated sexual relations with a federal employee.
• Clarence Thomas (R) confirmed after nomination hearings per Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, where newly nominated Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano (D) (more change you can believe in), was attorney for Anita Hill (D), who opposed Thomas as a potential sexual harasser. One memorable example Hill gave was his mention of a pubic hair in his Coke (not the real thing).

One Constitutional issue that politicians won't consider, because it truly limits the power of government and their power, is the exclusive Congressional power to declare war. Both parties benefit from the increase of government power and do nothing to jeopardize that power. If Bush aggrandizes the executive office, then Obama can use it when it's his turn.

Consider the recent history of the lack of adherence to Article I Section 8 and the power of Congress "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water":

• Truman (D), citing UN authority, in 1950 sends troops to the Korean war, fighting the communist North without a declaration of war by Congress. US troops are still in South Korea 58 years later.
• Eisenhauer (R) sends 14,000 troops to Lebanon in 1958 to "fight communism" without a declaration of war.
• Kennedy (D) sends 16,000 troops to Vietnam in 1961 continuing Eisenhauer's policy of "fighting communism" without a declaration of war.
• Kennedy (D) sends 1500 US-trained Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs fiasco that led to the Cuban missile crisis. There was no declaration of war, but there almost was a nuclear war.
• Johnson (D), after US-caused Tonkin Gulf incident, uses Gulf of Tonkin resolution to send troops to Vietnam in 1964. US leaves after eleven years and after hundreds of thousands killed. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not a declaration of war. (For those thinking Congress can vote for funding without declaring war, refer to US Constitution Article V.)
• Nixon (R) expands the Vietnam war into Laos and Cambodia--still no declaration of war. Vietnam war continues until 1973.
• Carter (D) funds mujahadeen for terrorist activities in Afghanistan against Soviet Union in 1979. During his administration, as in that of his successors and predecessors, US troops remain in Korea.
• Reagan (R) sends troops to Lebanon in 1982-84. More than 240 killed.
• Reagan (R) sends troops to invade Grenada in 1983 without a declaration of war.
• Reagan (R) sends 2000 troops to Panama without a declaration of war.
• GHW Bush (R) sends 24,000 troops to Panama to remove former ally Manuel Noriega from power without a Congressional declaration of war.
• GHW Bush (R) organizes UN-authorized but not Congressionally-declared Gulf War of 1990-91. The US moved troops into the Middle East using the Rapid Deployment Force created during the Carter administration.
• GHW Bush (R) sends troops to Somalia in 1992 to help distribute food for the United Nations.
• Clinton (D) changes the mission in Somalia, and in 1993 has US troops support the UN in nation-building. After the battle of Mogadishu and the deaths of eighteen US soldiers, all US troops were withdrawn. All without a Congressional declaration of war.
• Clinton (D) continued the embargo considered to have resulted in half a million Iraqi deaths and the bombing of Iraq in the "no fly zone" for eight years.
• Clinton (D) authorized the 1995 bombing of Bosnia with no declaration of war.
• GW Bush (R) invaded Afghanistan in 2001. There was no Congressional declaration of war. The war continues seven years later.
• GW Bush (R) invaded Iraq in 2003 to remove former ally Saddam Hussein from power. There was no Congressional declaration of war. The war continues five years later.
• President-elect Obama (D) wants to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He says he wants to eventually withdraw from Iraq. He has also been mentioning Darfur. More change you can believe in?

Have you heard the one about the Constitution? It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land.