On July 14 the President of the United Nations Security Council, Foreign Minister of Sweden, Lena Hjelm-Wallen, issued a Council proposal quoted in an official press release encouraging the UN's individual member states to "make appropriately trained police available to the Organization at short notice...." The Security Council "encouraged States to provide appropriate training of civilian police for international service and to seek further means to enhance the ways in which such police components were set up and supported. It encouraged their efforts to organize joint training between civilian and military components designated for United Nations operations." (emphasis supplied). It also "encourages the Secretary-General to provide assistance and guidance to Member States in order to promote a standardized approach towards the training and recruitment of civilian police."
This "request" by the most powerful, autonomous body within the United Nations forebodes the subtle beginnings of the introduction of an international police force that would work hand-in-glove with federal authorities in the United States. This would give great impetus to the ultimate creation of a national federal police force, or the transmutation of an existing federal law enforcement agency into such an organization.
The FBI, it appears, is gradually but certainly taking on this latter role. In spite of a cascade of recent, and as yet unresolved, scandals within the Bureau, it has been granted increasingly larger budgets to address its ever-growing national and international capacity. According to a May, 97 report in The New American, the FBI now has offices and agents "in 46 foreign cities, including Moscow, Beijing, Islamabad, Cairo and Tel Aviv, and [professional] relationships with the Russian KGB and other foreign police-state apparati."
With over 25,000 agents the FBI has begun to take on the appearance, if not the reality, of a national police force. This situation that the founding fathers so intensely desired to avoid--a national or federalized police agency--is coming to pass in a classical combat maneuver--the "pincer". From one direction the UN is moving from the outside to involve the U.S. in national and international civil policing, while from the inside, the FBI is becoming the primary arm of the "national police". The latter is being accomplished in a slow motion, Jekyl-to-Hyde transformation resulting from the unprecedented proliferation of federal laws (anti-crime, anti-terrorist, Communications Decency Act, etc.) continually being enacted by Congress, which requires, more and more, a federal law enforcement organization to address their violation. By federalizing or creating laws that the states cannot enforce, the government creates the virtual necessity for a federal police by which it can then usurp the rights of the states over its own citizens and incinerate the constitution's tenth amendment.
The FBI is now "involved in virtually all areas of law enforcement that had heretofore been exclusively local or state matters. It is this accelerating centralization of police powers and the alarming abuses of those powers, in tandem with the increasing convergence with totalitarian police-state regimes, which should concern all Americans who place any value on freedom. This dangerous trend flagrantly violates all constitutional principles and dashes the checks and balances which the framers of our federalist system labored so diligently to establish." (The New American, 5/97 ).
The United States Supreme Court, in the majority opinion in Ravalli County, Montana v. United States, 95-1503, concerning the challenge to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ("The Brady Bill", 18 USC Sec. 922) stated, "...the Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people." According to the tenth amendment to the constitution, those powers are not to overlap or infringe upon the jurisdiction one of the other.
Also contained in that decision, based largely on the 15th Federalist Paper by Madison, the high court maintained that placing state officers under federal control would have a negative effect upon "the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself."
It is the steady erosion of those constitutional separations that is providing the environment for a national police state. This country has carefully avoided such a centralized system of policing. The Founding Fathers reasoned that such would severely weaken the rights of the individual states to conduct their own law enforcement. That federal institution is now apparently being formulated and introduced, in part, via the back door as a proposed UN Security Council resolution.
Whatever states enter into cooperation with this "request" will require of its various police agencies to provide personnel to the UN in support of the international police. Does anyone truly believe that those "selected" personnel will ultimately be given a choice as to whether they are assigned to the "UN detail"? Since most police organizations are run in a quasi-military manner, those personnel could or could not necessarily be assigned to the UN force on a volunteer basis. If there are insufficient volunteers, then the positions would most certainly be assigned. This would possibly result in the unwilling conscription of American law enforcement officers into participating in United Nations' operations. Any refusal of individuals (or organizations) to participate could result in a similar incident such as was witnessed when Army Specialist Michael New was court-martialed for refusing to wear UN insignias on his U.S. Army uniform on the grounds that it violated his oath of service.
Because of the international nature of this proposed request, it necessarily presents the idea that, under the right circumstances, police officials of foreign nations could well be used within the United States to perform law enforcement tasks or, perhaps, even that apparently ubiquitous and benignly named UN standby, "peace-keeping" duties.
When American police officers participate in United Nations' civil policing actions, even within the borders of the United States, it becomes an "international" effort. While under the command of UN officials, they would logically not be allowed to consider citizenship as any reason on which to base their actions. The police officer's own citizenship would effectually be suspended or "internationalized".
It is not a new idea, that of using foreign personnel to perform law enforcement duties in a country to which they are not native. It has as its purpose the creation of a situation whereby it is considerably easier to use extreme or deadly force on those who are not of one's own nation. One can imagine how comparatively more difficult would be the effort to coerce American military or police personnel to fire upon fellow Americans than upon "foreigners" in another land. With a UN police force comprised of foreign nationals on American soil, the use of excessive violence upon the objects of their enforcement (American citizens) would become academic or even clinical in nature, rather than personal, as would be the case were the scenario American versus American.
FBI Director, Louis Freeh, made the ominous statement, "We are potentially the most dangerous agency in the country if we are not scrutinized carefully."
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This site is in the public domain.