Legal for U.S. Govt to Execute Citizens Without Trial Abroad, Coming to U.S. Soil? (Video)
December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment
U.S. Says Americans Are MILITARY Targets in the War on Terror … And Says that Only the White House – and Not the Courts – Gets to Decide Who Is a Legitimate Target
December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment
American Citizens on U.S. Soil May be Indefinitely Detained, Sent to Guantanamo or Assassinated 
As everyone realizes by now, Congress’ push for indefinite detention includes American citizens on American soil. As Huffington post notes:
The debate also has left many Americans scratching their heads as to whether Congress is actually attempting to authorize the indefinite detention of Americans by the military without charges. But proponents — led by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — say that is exactly what the war on terror requires. They argued that the bill simply codifies precedents set by the Supreme Court and removes uncertainty, which they said would better protect the country.
Here is John McCain justifying sending Americans to Guantanamo:
(As Emptywheel and Glenn Greenwald note, the White House has believed for many years that it possessed the power to indefinitely detain Americans)
But that’s not all.
The government can also kill American citizens. For more than a year and a half, the Obama administration has said it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process.
But now, as shown by the debates surrounding indefinite detention, the government is saying that America itself is a battlefield.
AP notes today:
U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.
***
The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson … said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.
The courts in habeas cases, such as those involving whether a detainee should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, make the determination of who can be considered an enemy combatant.
You might assume – in a vacuum – that this might be okay (even though it trashes the Constitution, the separation of military and police actions, and the division between internal and external affairs).
But it is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food.
And it is problematic in a period in which FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”, and even former Secretary of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge –admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.
And it is counter-productive in an age when the government – instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer – are doing things which increase the risk of terrorism.
And it is insane in a time of perpetual war.
And when the “War on Terror” in the Middle East and North Africa which is being used to justify the attack on Americans was planned long before 9/11.
And when Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. And 9/11 was entirely foreseeable, but wasn’t stopped. Indeed, no one in Washington even wants to hear how 9/11 happened, even though that is necessary to stop future terrorist attacks. And the military has bombed a bunch of oil-rich countries when it could have instead taken out Bin Laden years ago.
As I noted in March:
The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of PR, this is the actual policy:
- If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over
- It is a perpetual war, which will never be over
- Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers
- But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security
- We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention don’t apply to you
- Since you admitted that you’re a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention
See how that works?
And – given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants – it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
Source: https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/americans-are-military-targets-in-the-war-on-terror.html
The Failure to Investigate 9/11 Has Bankrupted America
December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment
Preface: This post does not discuss whether or not 9/11 was a “false flag” operation or an “inside job”. Anything other than a discussion of the negligence of the Bush administration is unnecessary for the purposes of this essay, and is thus beyond the scope of this post. 
In case you didn’t get the memo, we are currently in a depression.
And given that American citizens can be indefinitely detained or assassinated at the whim of the president, it is pretty clear that we now live in a police state.
This post will demonstrate – without getting into discussions of an “inside job” one way or the other – that the failure to hold a real 9/11 investigation is a core cause of our loss of our prosperity and freedom.
The Failure to Investigate 9/11 Has Bankrupted America
Top economists say that endless war bankrupts a nation.
For example, Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz says that the $3-5 trillion spent on the Iraq war alone has been very bad for the American economy.
The endless wars have also been a main component of America’s soaring debt:
And huge debts exert a very real drag on the economy.
As shown below, we wouldn’t have launched the war against Iraq – or the endless panoply of wars throughout the Middle East and North America – if 9/11 had actually been in investigated.
(Even the 9/11 Commission itself admits that there was criminal obstruction of justice and a whitewash of the investigation. As such, there has never been a real investigation.)
The Police State Was Caused by the Failure to Investigate 9/11
The police state started in 2001.
Specifically, on 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney initiated Continuity of Government Plans that ended America’s constitutional form of government (at least for some undetermined period of time.)
On that same day, a national state of emergency was declared … and that state of emergency has continuously been in effect up to today.
It is beyond dispute that 9/11 was entirely foreseeable, but – due to the extreme negligence and incompetence or lack of caring of the Bush administration (remember, I’m not getting into any other theories in this post) it wasn’t stopped. Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable.
If there had been a real 9/11 investigation, the Bush administration’s extreme negligence would have come to light. And Americans would have learned that terrorism can largely be prevented if the military and intelligence officers are simply allowed to do their job.
As just one example, Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11.
The genius Mr. Cheney apparently scheduled 5 war games for the morning of 9/11. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, purportedly including one “live fly” exercise using real planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video.
False radar blips to be inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises, which may have confused the heck out of them (see this December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article; pay-per-view; reprinted here). Way to let that one slip through, Mr. in-charge-of-all-war-games.
The military – under the Vice President’s command that day – didn’t scramble enough fighter jets, and then scrambled jets far over the Atlantic Ocean, in what Senator Mark Dayton called:
The most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I’ve ever, under those extreme circumstances, witnessed in the public sector.
And the knucklehead personally watched flight 77 for many miles, but – according to Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta – stopped it from being shot down before it hit the Pentagon.
Americans would have learned through any real 9/11 investigation that Cheney’s negligence and mucking around in what should have been the generals’ jobs was partly responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen.
In other words, a real 9/11 investigation would have shown Americans that 9/11 should of, could of, and would have been stopped – and that America can protect itself against future terrorist attacks – simply by playing goalie well in our country.
And Americans – instead of being scared into immobility – would have been mad at our government for dropping the ball. And we would have demanded accountability and effective service from our elected officials. (Indeed, experts have repeatedly demonstrated that fear of terror makes people stupid … and makes them willing to accept a loss of liberty and other abuses they would never otherwise accept.)
The Road Not Taken
Instead, of course, Americans were led to believe that Al Qaeda was going to get us unless we took the fight to the Middle East and North Africa. The administration pretended that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11 – one of the main justifications for that war.
Had a real 9/11 investigation been conducted before we launched the Iraq war, it would have taken awayone of the two main rationales for that war. (The FBI was also instructed to blame the anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda, and high-level government officials pointed towards Iraq as the source of the anthrax, even though there was absolutely no basis for those claims. But that’s another story.)
Dan Rather was right when he wrote last week:
We have been so afraid; so hell bent on destroying enemies … both foreign and domestic … we have hurt ourselves and our democracy.
Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser also told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is so overblown that it is “a mythical historical narrative”.
And as I noted in 2008:
Former deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats, a 23-year senior CIA analyst, who “drafted or was involved in many of the government’s most senior assessments of the threats facing our country [and who] devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat”, writes today in the Washington Post that the neocons have whipped us into an irrational fear of the terrorism. In reality, “Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears” and our leaders.
This is no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The BBC produced a documentary called The Power of Nightmares in 2005 that showed that politicians were greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat for political ends.
And unfortunately, many in government have intentionally whipped up fear in the American public for their own political purposes. For example, FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”.
And former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection. Fear sells.
And because 9/11 was never really investigated, the government – instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer – are doing things which increase the risk of terrorism.
As such, the threats from terrorism form even more of a “justification” for a suspension of our Constitutional rights.
The failure to investigate 9/11 has bankrupted America financially and morally, and has allowed us to stand idly by while our liberty has been destroyed.
Source: https://www.washingtonsblog.com/
The Media’s Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful
December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment
The broadcast media’s ignorance and unwillingness to cover the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a “battlefield” and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney, is unacceptable. 
Guys, this is far more important than Penn State’s Disgusting Creep of the Decade, or even Conrad Murray’s sentencing.
Call it what you will: a military junta, a secret invalidation of Americans’ civil rights, a Congress gone mad. Whatever it is, it needs to be covered by the press, and quickly.
Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and the other handful of household names that mainstream America relies on for news should be talking about this non-stop.
I emailed producers and on-air talent at the three major cable news networks yesterday: not one of them was willing to step up to the plate and report on this appalling legislation, which would give Americans roughly the same protections as citizens in China or Saudi Arabia.
Bloggers and the ACLU’s analysis have already made the work easy for you guys. Even an ADD segment producer can do the math:
- Pay special attention to Section 1031 of the bill.
- This bill violates the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), as it will allow federal military personnel to engage in domestic law enforcement. This is profoundly unconstitutional and scary.
- Also read Sen. Lindsey Graham’s chilling defense of the offending provision in this bill, calling to make the homeland a “battlefield.” Has anyone told these guys that Osama bin Laden and his deputies are dead? Those still alive are running from drone strikes on a daily basis. So who exactly are we fighting against? Are you protecting us from a handful of (almost entirely peaceful) college kids at the Occupy protests? If so, martial law and throwing out 200+ years of basic civil rights seems rather excessive.
- Finally, as the ACLU points out, you won’t have any trouble booking an expert talking head who will tell you how dangerous and counterproductive the National Defense Authorization Act is: “The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive.” Book one of them on your program, and do it quickly. The Senate has already rejected an amendment which would have banned the indefinite detention provisions from the bill.
Please, do your jobs. This is the kind of story that wins journalism awards and makes careers. It’s the kind of story that makes viewers trust you.
UPDATE: To the mainstream media’s credit, Keith Olbermann of Current TV has now mentioned the NDAA’s harmful provision, and I’ve been told that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is drawing attention to it as well. A good start, but not nearly enough.
The Entire United States Is Now A War Zone: S.1867 Passes The Senate With Massive Support
December 3, 2011 By 1 Comment
This is one of the most tragic events I have written about since establishing End the Lie over eight months ago: the horrendous bill that would turn all of America into a battlefield and subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without charge or trial has passed the Senate. 
To make matters even worse, only seven of our so-called representatives voted against the bill, proving once and for all (if anyone had any doubt remaining) that our government does not work for us in any way, shape, or form.
S.1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012, passed with a resounding 93-7 vote.
That’s right, 93 of our Senators voted to literally eviscerate what little rights were still protected afterthe PATRIOT Act was hastily pushed in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001.
The NDAA cuts Pentagon spending by $43 billion from last year’s budget, a number so insignificant when compared to the $662 billion still (officially) allocated, it is almost laughable.
The bill also contained an amendment which enacts strict new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and any entities that do business with it, a move which will likely have brutal repercussions for the Iranian people – just like the sanctions on Iraq did.
Not a single Senator voted against this amendment, which was voted on soon before the entirety of S.1867 was passed, despite the hollow threats of a veto from the Obama White House.
Based simply on historical precedent, I trust Obama’s promises as much as I trust thehomeless man who told me he was John F. Kennedy.
I wish that I could believe that the Obama administration would strike down this horrific bill but I would be quite ignorant and naïve if I did so.
Furthermore, the White House’s official statement doesn’t even say that they will veto the bill. In fact, it says, “the President’s senior advisers [will] recommend a veto.”
As Glenn Greenwald points out, the objection isn’t even about opposing the detention of accused terrorists without a trial, instead it is the contention that, “whether an accused Terrorist is put in military detention rather than civilian custody is for the President alone to decide.”
Obama’s opposition has nothing to do with the rule of law or protecting Americans, in fact, Senator Levin disclosed and Dave Kopel reported that, “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power”.
As I have detailed in two past articles entitled Do not be deceived: S.1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act and S.1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial, the assurances that this will not be used on American citizens are hollow, evidenced by the fact that the Feinstein amendment to S.1867, amendment number 1126, which, according to the official Senate Democrats page, was an attempt at “prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens” was rejected with a 45-55 vote.
Let’s examine some of the attempts to convince the American people that this will not change anything and that we will still be protected under law.
Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Antonio said:
In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in section 1031 that says that this includes ‘any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.’ This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.
While this might sound reassuring to some, one must realize that the government can interpret just about anything as engaging “in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.
Consider the fact that the Homeland Security Police Institute’s report published earlier this year partly focused on combating the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative” which sets the stage for the government being able to declare that spreading the narrative amounts to “a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.
At the time I wrote:
Part of these domestic efforts highlighted in the report is combating the ‘spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative’ but never addressed is why exactly extremist groups have the ability to spread their narrative.
A frightening conclusion that can be drawn from the focus on the ‘spread of the entity’s narrative’ is that such claims could be used to justify limiting the American right to free speech.
It would be very easy to justify eliminating free speech if much of the United States was convinced of the danger of spreading terrorist narrative.
The report doesn’t specifically explain what the narrative is or why it is so dangerous, but one could assume that any anti-government, anti-war, anti-corporatist and pro-human rights speech could be squeezed under this umbrella. Essentially, anything that criticizes or questions the United States could easily be demonized because it is allegedly spreading ‘the entity’s narrative’.
This raises an important question: could my work and the work of others devoted to exposing the fraud that is the “war on terror” and the intimate links between our government and the terrorist entities they are supposedly fighting be considered to be supporting these entities?
Unfortunately, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is possible for the following reasons:
1) The Department of Defense actually put a question on an examination saying that protests are an act of “low-level terrorism” (which they later deleted after the ACLU sent a letter demanding it be removed).
2) Anti-war activists and websites are deemed worthy of beingtreated as terrorists and being listed on terrorist watchlists.
3) We likely will never even be told how exactly the government is interpreting S.1867.
In the case of the PATRIOT Act (which is overwhelmingly used in cases that are unrelated to terrorism in every way), there is in fact a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, as revealed by Senator Ron Wyden back in May.
In October, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit (read the PDF here) in an attempt to force the government to reveal the details of the secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act.
As of now, we still do not know how the PATRIOT Act is interpreted by the government, meaning that we have no idea how it is actually being used.
I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make the assumption that S.1867 would be interpreted in a straightforward manner, meaning that all of the assurances being made by Senators are worthless.
Glenn Greenwald verifies this in writing the following as an update to the post previously quoted in this article, “Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to confine military detention to those apprehended “abroad,” i.e., off U.S. soil — failed by a vote of 45-55.”
Furthermore, as I detailed in my previous coverage of S.1867, Senator Lindsey Graham clearly said, in absolutely no uncertain terms whatsoever, “In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland.”
The fact that the establishment media continues to peddle the blatant lie that is the claim that S.1867 will not be used on American citizens is beyond me.
This is especially true when one considers the fact that lawyers for the Obama administrationreaffirmed that American citizens “are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida,” although we all know that no proof or trial is required to make that assertion.
As evidenced by the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, no trial is needed for our illegitimate government to assassinate an American citizen.
We can only assume that it is just a matter of time until American citizens are declared to be supporting al Qaeda and killed on American soil without so much as a single court hearing.
CNN claims, “Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it’s not the bill’s intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.”
Yet, of course, they fail to cite the amendment, and quote Senator Feinstein in saying, “It supports present law,” even though Feinstein’s amendment was not passed.
The Associated Press reported, “Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeatedly pointed out that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.”
Yet they still quoted senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Christopher Anders who said, “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.”
The fact that the corporate-controlled establishment media is barely covering this – if at all – is just another piece amongst the mountains of evidence showing that they are complicit in the criminal conspiracy that is dominating our government.
Every single Senator that voted for this amendment is a traitor. It’s that simple. 97 of our so-called representatives, which you can see listed in full here, are actively working against the American people.
They are turning the United States into such a hellish police state that the world’s most infamous dictators would be green with envy.
Unsurprisingly, the top stories on Google News makes no mention of the atrocious attack on everything that America was built upon that is embodied by S.1867.
This legislation is clearly being minimized and marginalized in the press, as if it is some minor bill that will never be invoked in order to detain Americans indefinitely without charge or trial.
That is patently absurd and to assume such would be nothing short of ignorant to an extreme degree, given that the American government utilizes every single possible method to exploit, oppress and assault Americans who stand up for their rights.
Furthermore, the Senators who voted against S.Amdt.1126, the amendment to S.1867 which would have limited “the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031” should be considered traitorous criminals of the highest order, not to say that all 97 of those who voted for S.1867 are any better.
These Senators are not only defying their oath of office in waging war on the Constitution, they are also fighting to destroy the most critical rights we have in this country and in doing so are desecrating everything that our forefathers gave up their lives for.
Instead of British troops patrolling the streets in their red coats, it will be American soldiers who have the authority to detain you forever without a shred of evidence if they decide you’re a terrorist or supporting any organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
How they define that is anyone’s guess, but given that the entire interpretation of the PATRIOT Act is regarded as a state secret, we can assume that we will never even get to know.
Moreover, the fact that no charges or trial are needed under S.1867, the government needs no proof of supporting, planning, or committing terrorism whatsoever.
Since no evidence will ever be presented given that no trial or charges will ever be filed, they need not worry about that pesky thing called habeus corpus or anything resembling evidence of any kind.
All they need to do is declare that you’re an enemy combatant and suddenly you’re eligible to be snatched up by military thugs and locked away never to see the light of day again.
As far as I have seen, there are no detailed requirements set forth in the bill which have to be met before the military can indefinitely detain, and torture (or conduct “enhanced interrogation” if you’d prefer the government’s semantic work-around), Americans and people around the world.
What is stopping them from creating accounts for Americans who are actively resisting the fascistic police state corporatocracy which our once free nation has become on some jihadi website and using it has justification to claim these individuals are involved with terrorists?
What is stopping them from manufacturing any flimsy piece of evidence they can point to, even though they never actually have to present it or have it questioned in a court of law, in order to round up American dissidents?
The grim answer to these disturbing questions is: nothing. I regret having to say such a disheartening thing about the United States of America, a country I once thought was the freest nation in the world, but it is true.
I must emphasize once again that our government considers even ideology and protest to be a low-level act of terrorism, so if you’re anti-war, pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-justice, anti-corruption, or even worse, if you’re like me and expose the criminal government in Washington that supports terrorism while criminalizing American citizens, you very well might be labeled a terrorist.
Keep in mind that the House sister bill, H.R.1540, was passed with a 322-96 vote on May 26th, now all that is stopping this ludicrous from utterly eliminating the Bill of Rights is resolving the differences which will be done by the following appointed conferees: Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter.
Unsurprisingly, not a single person who voted against S.1867 is included in that list.
I do not hesitate in saying that what our so-called representatives have done is an act of treason that represents the single most dangerous move ever made by our government.
Every single square inch of the United States is now a war zone and you or I could easily be declared soldiers on the wrong side of the war and treated as such.
No proof, no charges, and no trial are required. They do not even have to draw spurious links to terrorist organizations in order to indefinitely detain you as they could easily declare the evidence critical to national security and thus withhold it for as long as they please.
I will continue to hope that Obama decides to go against every single thing he has done after being sworn in, but I think the chances are so slim that it is almost delusional to believe that he will do this.
After all, the only reason his administration is opposing it is because it doesn’t give the executive enough power, not because it strips away every legal protection we have.
If this is not the most laughably illegitimate reason to oppose the attack on all Americans that is S.1867, I don’t know what is.
The most important question that remains unanswered, for which I am not sure that I have a viable solution, is: how do we stop this? Is there any way we can bring down a criminal government packed to the brim with traitorous co-conspirators in a just, peaceful manner?
After all, if the American people resort to violence, we are no better than those bloodthirsty members of our armed forces and law enforcement who kill and beat human beings around our nation and the world with impunity.
However, if our military and police forces realize that at any moment they too could be deemed enemy combatants and treated like subhuman scum and thus decide to refuse all unlawful orders and arrest the real terrorists in Washington, we might be able to reinstate the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which once defined our nation.
Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/entire-united-states-is-now-war-zone.html
The New Third World Police State: Welcome To America!
December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment
America. Synonymous with freedom to the people of oppressive nations all over the globe-or was, once. These days, we’re seeing examples of the erosion of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms with frightening irregularity, and citizens of those oppressive nations are standing and protesting in solidarity with oppressed citizens of the United States. Our rapidly dwindling freedoms, combined with the conditions that many Americans are just waking up to discover, indicate that America is developing all the hallmarks of nations we refer to as the Third World. America is also perilously close to completely meeting the generally accepted definition of a police or totalitarian state. Sound alarmist? Sure. But for good reason. Alarmist doesn’t always equate to “wrong”.
Consider the elements of a police state. In a police state, the government: exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political aspects of the lives of citizens; exhibits elements of totalitarianism; restricts mobility; and restricts freedom of expression, particularly with regard to views that are in opposition to the views held by the government. War or national emergency has historically been a precursor to the shift to becoming a police state, as fear generally causes people to accept restrictions and indignities they otherwise would not, in the name of safety.
Political control may be exerted by government-sponsored forces operating outside the laws citizens are subject to, and there is little to no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the government; in other words, the government cannot violate the law, because the government’s actions are the law, even when they’re not.
The communications of residents are subject to monitoring by elements of the government, and nations accused of being a police state will generally deny it.
Totalitarianism involves the attempt to regulate every aspect of residents’ lives, and no recognized limit to the government’s authority. This type of system achieves and maintains control via a single political party, economic control, restricted speech, burdensome regulations, mass surveillance, etc. Widespread use of fear inspires terror in its residents, making them more malleable to control; this is achieved through an ongoing propaganda campaign, which is delivered to the people via government-controlled mass media.
Sound familiar? They should.
It’s always seemed odd to me that the nation lauded for being “free” has so many laws that it’s virtually impossible for the average citizen to keep track of them all-and more are passed every year. Our system of law is so rigid that ignorance of even one of the thousands of laws is not an excuse for those who break it unknowingly. These laws cover everything, from marriage to regulating individual seat belt use, use of substances, legal methods of procuring food, IRS, investments, campaign financing, etc. Laws are written in such a vague manner that they encourage expansive interpretation by law enforcement and prosecutors, leaving average citizens in danger of severe consequences for behavior that few would believe illegal.
Freedom of expression was so important in the eyes of our Founding Fathers that they guaranteed us the right to it in our First Amendment. Bear in mind that our Founding Fathers were men who felt so abused by their previous government that they started a war over the right to found their own, and designed the Constitution to protect American citizens from the new government. Since 1925, courts have consistently ruled that our 14thAmendment applies our First Amendment to states and localities as well. Lifelong American citizens often take free speech for granted, as most of us have never experienced anything to the contrary. But during the overreaching police actions against the Occupy protests, the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of thousands of Americans were violated-publicly, intentionally, and violently. Peaceable, non- 
violent protesters have, during the practice of peaceable assembly, freedom of speech and airing of grievances, been violently evicted from public property; had their belongings wrongfully seized by police, tossed into garbage trucks and destroyed; have been pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed, beaten with police batons, shot with wooden dowels, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets and other “non-lethal” rounds, sometimes from lethal distances, and have been attacked with stun grenades and sound cannons. These rights violations against dissenting citizens have been so severe that they attracted the notice of the United Nations special rapporteur for the protection of free expression, who is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government, questioning why the government is not taking action to protect these fundamental rights. The First Amendment is far from the only example of Constitutional erosion by the government. For example, our 4th Amendment rights [unreasonable search & seizure] face regular attack, as does our 2nd Amendment [right to bear arms].
On the surface, America has two political parties. But if we look at what the combination of these parties have actually accomplished [not much], and who those accomplishments actually benefit [generally, Wall Street], they may as well be one. They certainly go out of their way to exclude any third parties that may not be as willing to play for the same team. Third party candidates do not enjoy the same level of financial support from their small party as do the major party candidates. Third-party candidates are also generally excluded from televised debates, and are not entitled to the level of public campaign financing received by candidates from the major political parties, often placing the cost of television advertising far out of reach. These disadvantages do all but guarantee that voters will remain largely ignorant of the party and its chosen candidates, and that a third party would find it exceedingly difficult to rise to the popularity of the Republicans or Democrats.
The government controls the economy, and even our personal finances, with a heavily biased hand. “Free trade” laws ostensibly allow free trade, but in reality only make fair trade extremely difficult, and contributes to low American wages. The IRS ensures that you make your “contribution” to the government, whether or not your individual circumstances allow you to afford to do so; failure to pay up can earn you a stint in prison. And our government appears to be happy to bail out Wall Street using our money, but refuses to take any significant action to help the millions of families and individuals severely injured by Wall Street’s illegal actions. This helps to ensure that, for the most part, the wealthy stay wealthy,and the poor remain poor.
When you think about it, even our mobility in America is certainly regulated to an amazing degree, whichever mode you choose. To drive, you need a license, a vehicle, insurance, and gas, all of which are, of course, taxed. The license requires two forms of ID, a written test, a practical test, a photo, and processing time. The vehicle can be pricey, and needs to be registered, inspected and insured. Since 1999, fuel prices can be artificially manipulated by anyone with enough cash and time, and the government can manipulate prices as well, in a variety of ways. Taking the bus [other than locally] or a boat requires ID, and, of course, cash. Train stations are now beginning to be invaded by the Transportation Security Administration, and TSA airport security has been an example of gross, government-perpetrated indignity upon the people for quite some time.
The choice between allowing an acne-prone, dim-witted barely-high-school-graduate to view you naked on a radiation-emitting machine with transmission and storage capability or permitting a large and frightening ugly woman to sexually assault you in an attempt to discern whether or not you are carrying a bomb in your cervix/testicles is not much of a choice at all. And no one is immune: men; women; diaper-wearing infants; diaper-wearing, terminally ill elderly ladies; 
breast prosthetic-wearing breast cancer survivors; colostomy/urostomy patients; rape survivors; young children; attractive, large-breasted women; etc. This is done in the name of “safety”, despite the fact that no bombs have been detonated on U.S.-departing planes since 1960. The TSA doesn’t make us safer.
Political control held by those outside the government is demonstrated by the power and influence of Wall Street. Elected government representatives, compelled by fat re-election campaign donations, work to pass legislation favorable to their donors. Such legislation often contributes to the continuation of the gross wealth inequality that pervades America. Past legislation has also been responsible for causing substantial damage to the environment, and to the safety and availability of food, prescription drugs, and other consumable products. While it’s true that the People are responsible for electing their government representatives, it’s also true that corporate campaign contributions pay for campaign ads, in which facts are grossly misrepresented and manipulated; >
these campaign advertisements often represent the sum total knowledge that the average American has about the candidates. As a result, representatives who represent only the interests of themselves and their campaign donors are elected. In effect, this makes virtually the entire American government subject to control by the wealthiest 0.1% of the population.
Contributing to this well-established, self-serving cycle is the covert campaign of propaganda. Most Americans truly believe that we have a free press. And we do, in Constitutional terms. But the Constitution only protects us from Congress. Virtually every major mainstream media outlet is owned and/or controlled by corporate interests or wealthy individuals.
This encompasses all major TV & radio stations/channels, magazines, newspapers, and even major websites. And the reports of this corporate-controlled mainstream media do not accurately reflect the facts. Reports are carefully crafted to include only those facts which support the positions of those who own or control the specific media outlet. Uncomfortable events are ignored, if possible; if it can’t be ignored, the persons involved are purposefully and persistently discredited.
War creates a common enemy, and feelings of patriotic unity. Endless war and international conflict creates a faceless, constant, omnipresent enemy, and is an excellent way to inspire fear. Enough fear softens the populace into accepting “safety” measures a free society otherwise wouldn’t. Since 1775, there have been only a few years in which the United States was not involving itself, militarily or covertly, in the business of other nations. 
For the last ten years, we’ve been fighting the “War On Terror”, leading to American fears of brown-skinned, bearded, turban-wrapped, burka-wearing Muslim or mistaken-for-Muslim individuals, unattended packages, and invisible, would-be airliner bombers concealing explosive materials in unmentionable places. While we fret over the loss of expensive, >3oz personal hygiene products at the hands of pimply, authoritarian TSA officials, the United States has been carrying out internationally-illegal operations in more than 120 nations, including raids, bombings and assassinations that kill innocent civilians as well as or instead of the intended targets. At least one American citizen living overseas was the intentional target of one such operation. So much for operating within the law.
Libya is another good example of the executive’s political power operating outside the law. The Constitution, the War Powers Act and U.S. law are very clear, and were violated; much of Congress expressed concern and dismay, but in then end, most of Congress allowed these crimes to stand, despite possessing the ability to remedy the action and to punish the executive who ordered it.
On November 29th, 2011, a day which I most sincerely hope will NOT live in infamy, controversial portions of S1867, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, were passed, allowing the U.S. military to indefinitely detain American citizens living on U.S. soil without due process or trial, and with nothing more than suspicion of terrorism as an excuse. Section 1031, in authorizing the military to engage in law enforcement actions on U.S. soil essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which protected citizens from military occupation by limiting the ability of governments to commonly use the federal military to perform law enforcement functions within the U.S. The stated rationale for this action is best summed up by South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who claims, “The homeland is part of the battlefield.”
Other than the obvious issues one might have with a constant, active, armed-and-uniformed military presence on our own soil, this law would appear to be incompatible with many of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, including our Fourth , Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment rights, which grant us the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; right to due process; right to a speedy, public, impartial jury trial; right to be informed of charges against us; right to face opposing witnesses and to present supporting witnesses, right to an attorney; protection against cruel and unusual punishment; right to equal protection under the law. Mere suspicion as grounds for an arrest, not being informed of the charges against you, indefinite detention, torture, and a closed military tribunal, which may or may not even take place within the U.S. do not appear to meet these Constitutionally-guaranteed obligations of the U.S. to its citizens.
In essence, this means that the military can, at any time, come into your home, take you away, hide you in a military prison on a military base, fail to tell you what’s going on, torture you, fail to charge you, and keep you forever, if they so chose. And there’s not a damn thing you could do about it.
Terrifying, especially when one stops to ponder exactly who and what our government’s definition of terrorism includes. The many different agencies tasked with national security have various definitions, but in general they include: low-level protesters, according to the Department of Defense; members of groups which support states’ authority over the federal government; members of groups dedicating to opposing a single issue, such as abortion, or immigration; those who are opposed to federal policies; those who focus on our specific economic issues; veterans, in general, and of the disillusioned, disgruntled and disabled varieties in particular. “Political deviants” are also on the radar; this is yet another way to discourage people from supporting any political party other than the two majors, as third-party supporters are considered “deviant“.
Combine this with the unsettling news that our “smart phones” apparently come fully equipped with stealth software that has the capability to keep track of the phone’s owner-and the phone’s owner’s business. Per Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, in addition to monitoring location-even when the phone is turned off-this type of software has the capability to record text messages, numbers dialed, keystrokes tapped and websites visited-including encrypted searches-and sends those records elsewhere, makes use of voice recognition software to identify the parties to a conversation, and can even snap surreptitious pics of people and places nearby.
They say that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, America and its residents appear to be existing in a nightmare of endless reruns. The results, and the implications, are terrifying.
White House Repeats Threat To Veto US Defense Bill
December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House on Friday reaffirmed its threat to veto the Pentagon budget after the Senate passed a funding bill that requires military detention for terrorism suspects and indefinite detention without trial in some cases.
White House spokesman Jay Carney accused the Senate of engaging in “political micromanagement” by including provisions that he said would restrict US flexibility in the fight against Al-Qaeda. 
“Any bill that challenges or constrains the president’s critical authority to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation will prompt his senior advisors to recommend a veto,” Carney said.
The provisions were in a $660 billion 2012 defense bill that passed the Senate on Thursday in a 93-7 vote.
It would require that terrorism suspects be held by the military, and either be tried by US military commissions or in some cases be held indefinitely.
The White House sees the provisions as a constraint on the administration’s ability to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the United States, try them in civilian court, or even transfer them to foreign countries.
“Counterterrorism officials from the Republican and Democratic administrations as you know have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize the national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al-Qaeda,” Carney said.
“By ignoring these non-partisan recommendations, including the recommendations of the secretary of defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, the Senate has unfortunately engaged in a little political micromanagement at the expense of sensible national security policy,” he added.
Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/white-house-repeats-threat-to-veto-us.html
What Sections 1031 and 1032 of Bill 1867 Really Mean
December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment
If you haven’t already read section 1031 and 1032 of senate bill 1867, they can be found in the bill’s original pdf document here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
There really is a lot of hype going around about this senate bill. Most people who are building it up haven’t done their own research and are just regurgitating what they hear from those who are hyping it up. I fear people in my family think that way when I write them emails about this stuff, that I’m just spreading the hype. The thing is, I’ve done my research and have studied the applicable sections of that bill and am drawing my conclusion based on what I know. 
There are also a lot of people who say this has nothing to do with United States citizens, as it plainly says in section 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
But, its important to pay attention to the language and scope of this statement found in section 1031 regarding people that can be detained:
————————————-
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
————————————-
The language appears to imply only “al-Qaeda” and “the Taliban” and “associated forces”. Sure it means “associated forces” being those who are associated directly with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, right? Surely it doesn’t mean any of us who are United States citizens, right?
They need to clarify to a much larger degree what “associated forces” means. To do this, they need to INCLUDE groups who fall under “associated forces”, not just EXCLUDE United States citizens. Someone might argue that when it says “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States”, they are in fact describing groups who fall under “associated forces”. But again, that is WAY too broad and must be clarified.
They need to clarify “hostilities against the United States”, too. For all we know, anyone that badmouths President Obama is engaging in hostilities against the United States. Again, anyone who brings to light the insidious corruption of our government (our current government as a whole) just might be engaging in hostilities against the United States because doing so would thwart the agendas of “officials” in our government who are pushing for a New World Order and a one world government.
To add more weight to the issue, it says “including any person who has committed a belligerent act”. People automatically think the bill is referring to foreigners who fall under “associated forces”. But what is a “belligerent act”? According to merriam-webster.com, belligerence is “an aggressive or truculent attitude, atmosphere, or disposition”. If we accept that definition and re-read “including any person who has committed a belligerent act”, that can very easily mean anyone around the world (including us Americans) who commit an act with an aggressive or truculent attitude.
Considering the context in which “belligerent act” is used in the bill, it is connected to war and may not necessarily be referring to joe-blow who commits an act with an aggressive attitude. Once again, they need to be VERY SPECIFIC when describing these types of bills.
To clarify things, they added the statements in section 1032:
————————————-
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
————————————-
Think about this phrase from above: “The requirement in paragraph (1)”… What is paragraph (1)? Here it is: “Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”
Going on: “The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined” (Now read it carefully) “to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” (again, there’s that very broadly defined associated force who can encompass just about anyone) “that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda” (ohhh, ok, so now they’re getting more detailed).
They HAVE to more precisely describe what it means to act in coordination with al-Qaeda because if they don’t, that lack of description will be used against us. You can count on that. For example, if you go to the airport and opt-out of the naked body scanners, you are treated like you’re guilty of something. They then will perform a full body pat down and touch your private parts whether you say you’re leaving or not. If you refuse that, you are taken into a room for questioning. Can’t forget to mention all the reported thefts and rapes that happen behind those closed doors. All this for the sake of safety? How many terrorists have the TSA thugs caught by performing these dangerous (the body scanners) and extremely invasive (the pat downs) protocol procedures? Oh, and I forgot to mention that high and mighty bankers and government officials are exempt from going through the scanners and having the pat downs, while it is THEY who are raping this country of its freedoms outlined in the Constitution. They are the terrorists and should be treated as such.
Now, by me saying what I just did and posting it on SurvivingTheFuture.com, it can possibly be “determined” that I am engaging in hostilities against the United States. But once again, these hostilities are not precisely defined in the bill which means that something so simple as writing a few lines of truth about our corrupt system might be grounds for arrest.
So am I truly safe just because of the little line they added in section 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States”. I’m a citizen, right? If they determine for ANY reason at all I might be associated with al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces”, that little line will not keep me safe. If you’re a traitor, you’re a traitor and will be treated as such. And it will be determined by them.
People might say that I’m looking too deep, but considering the sins our current government has committed against humanity now and over the years (including enslaving us in so much debt that there is no way out except to turn to a world currency run by a world government supported by the Trilateral Commission and the Builderburg Group, thus destroying the Constitution… all this info is available), I don’t believe there is anything they wont do.
We are a VERY dependent people. Over 44 million Americans are using food stamps because they can’t afford to be independent in that area. What’s going to happen when the US Dollar becomes worth less and less, and the government keeps on providing food to its citizens and illegal parasites? Taxes taxes taxes. Money printing printing printing. Debt debt debt. The only solution will be create a world central bank that controls the money supply and prices. A major red flag for that is the preliminary testing of the idea – the Euro. A bunch of countries bought in to the idea and its destroying them. If we go a world currency, the same thing will happen and the United States will lose its sovereignty and its precious freedoms protected by the Constitution.
The thing is, its the ultimate goal of the globalists and eugenicist like Hillary and Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich (he just talked about it a few days ago, and was supported by Bill Clinton), and many more is to have a one world government with them being a part of it.
There are good guys like Ron Paul who will do their utmost to restore America and have a real constitutional government, as well as the currency talked about in the constitution rather than our worthless federal reserve notes. Any idea why Ron Paul gets seconds compared to minutes in the Presidential debates yet will wins in post-debate polls? Its because mainstream media doesn’t want Americans to hear what he has to say. He doesn’t get the time of day from them, and its sad. But he is going strong, and I believe he needs to be President in order for us to get back on track. None of the other candidates will do it. They all say the same thing which is what we want to hear.
Anyway, this whole situation with this bill… The bill needs to be denied or drastically clarified so the scope includes very specifically defined groups of people rather than just excluding United States citizens. I could go on for hours about what our government has done, but people don’t want to hear it.
Here is the link to what zerohedge says about it and how it will create a police state here in America.
Here is a paragraph from their article:
“The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.”
Here is what the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) briefly says about it:
“The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge.”
“The Defense Authorization bill — a “must-pass” piece of legislation — is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President — and all future presidents — the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.”
Here is a link to the ACLU website where you can send a message to your senators and urge them to oppose this bill. The message is pre-filled so all you have to do is send it. If you’d like, you can customize the message and insert your thoughts and feelings about it. Now is the time to take action and put forth your voice. This is real stuff. Its not hard to see that when our government is given power, they abuse the crap out of it. We can’t give our government this power. Its too broad and dangerous.
I hope you all send the message because by not doing so when the opportunity is available, we don’t let our voice be heard. The majority of the people tend to choose that which is right, right? The scriptures warn us what happens when the majority chooses evil. And by not letting our voices be heard, we withdraw from the majority of those who choose righteousness and inadvertently let those who choose evil become greater in number.
I’m sending the message to my Idaho Senator right now and sure hope you guys do the same for your state. Love you all! Here’s the link to the ACLU website to send the message:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA
Anyway, I’m done with my rant now about section 1031 and 1032 of Bill 1867!
Source: https://www.survivingthefuture.com/what-sections-1031-and-1032-of-bill-1867-really-mean.html
Impeach Every Senator Who Voted for “U.S. is a Battlefield” Bill that Violates Basic Rights
December 1, 2011 By 3 Comments
Stand up for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American People.
To every Senator who voted in favor of the McCain/Levin National Defense Authorization Act a.k.a. “U.S. is a Battlefield” bill, which gives the military a right to raid the homes of U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely without charges, rights to a lawyer, or habeus corpus:
You have committed treason directly against the American people! We do not fear signing this petition, because if we live in fear, we will have lost. This is a way of peacefully standing up and saying we will not let a small group of politicians take away the rights and freedoms of 300,000,000+ people.
We the People are holding you accountable and saying, “We will not let this happen.” This vote goes directly against the U.S. Citizens Bill of Rights written by our Founding Fathers. It is the basis of the country and no group of people is allowed to dissolve these rights!
Americans, stand up for our country and what is right. Impeach every single Senator who directly voted to destroy the Constitution.
The Senate Just Voted Against The Afghanistan War. Here’s The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.
December 1, 2011 By Leave a Comment
The Senate just voted against the Afghanistan war. Here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted by voice vote to pass an amendment that concludes thus:
“Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—1) the President of the United States should expedite the transition of the responsibility for military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan;2) the President shall devise a plan based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic missions in the region, and appropriate members of the cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for expediting the drawdown of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security authority to Afghan authorities prior to December 2014; and3) and not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Resolution, the President shall transmit to Congress a plan with a timetable and completion date for the accelerated transition of all military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan.”
This would be an extremely weak demand from a peace group, but coming from that seat of militaristic corruption, the U.S. Senate, it stands a good chance of actually being acted on by President Obama, and acted on in a meaningful way, such as withdrawing in 2012 rather than by November 2014 instead of December 2014. It is also vague enough that it can be built on with something stronger in the coming months without any contradiction.This amendment came from Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, where Portland has seen a strong Occupy movement. Of course, the whole country has seen a burst of activism. The amendment had bipartisan support. And its rhetorical value, which is most of its value, cannot be undone by a conference committee or a veto.
THE BAD
Three more years of a campaign of mass murder is not an acceptable policy. The Senate has merely asked for something better than the current plan. And the emphasis is on “merely asked.” The Senate is funding the war in the same bill in which it is asking its executive to do its job. The constitutional role of Congress is to make decisions and enforce them with the power of the purse.
Here the Senate is asking the President to decide what to do, but to decide something not quite as bad as his current plan. There is no indication that if the President refuses, funding for a longer war will be cut off. Congress recently stated its opposition to a war in Libya while funding it. Individual senators and House members swore they opposed the War on Iraq while funding it for several years. The President himself did that when he was a senator.
There is also no indication of whether a new president, should we have one, would be bound by the current president’s plan. Also missing is any requirement that all U.S. forces depart, as opposed to, say, remaining as “trainers”. What would help would be a pivot from this bill to a better one in the House. The Senate has now opposed endless war in Afghanistan. In the House there is a bill with 64 cosponsors that would end the war by ceasing to fund it. That bill, HR 780, would be a serious step forward. And it need only pass the House if those who vote for it follow through by voting against all war funding.
THE UGLY
The Merkley amendment is not helped by the assorted whereas clauses that precede the concluding resolution:
“Whereas, after al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, the United States rightly sought to bring to justice those who attacked us, to eliminate al Qaeda’s safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan, and to remove the terrorist-allied Taliban government;”
Really? This is your antiwar statement? The majority of people in the United States tell pollsters they disagree with this, and they have good reason. “Bringing justice” by bombing people is not just. Overturning foreign governments by force, even horrible ones, is not benefitting the world.
“Whereas, the Afghanistan War is now the longest in American history; “Whereas, United States’ troops, intelligence personnel and diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved these objectives, culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden;”
Really? Skillfully? Ten years to extrajudicially murder one man, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, many thousands of innocent lives, a further devastated nation, and increased hostility toward our own? I’d hate to have seen that done less skillfully.
“Whereas, national security experts, including Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, have noted that al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has been greatly diminished;“Whereas, over the past ten years the United States’ mission has evolved to include a prolonged nation-building effort, including the creation of a strong central government, a national police force and army, and effective civic institutions;”
You’re joking, right?
“Whereas, such nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are undermined by corruption, high illiteracy, and a historic aversion to a strong central government;”
Is that a retraction?
“Whereas, members of the United States military have served in Afghanistan valiantly and with honor, and many have sacrificed their lives and health in service to their country;”
Honor? Invading someone else’s country? Kicking in doors? Imprisoning? Murdering? Cutting off fingers as trophies? Where is the honor in this?
“Whereas, the United States is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Afghanistan at a time when at home there is high unemployment, a flood of foreclosures, a record deficit, and a debt that is over $15 trillion and growing;”
There are the same problems and much worse in Afghanistan. The question isn’t where you spend the money, but on what you spend the money.
“Whereas, the United States has now accomplished its original objectives in Afghanistan;”
The pipeline is up and running? The bases are permanent? The natural resources have been exhausted? The nuclear weapons are positioned? The campaign funders have satisfied their need for profits? The troops have begun moving into Iran?
“Whereas, the continued concentration of American and NATO military forces in one region, when terrorist forces are located in many parts of the world, is not an efficient use of resources; “Whereas, the battle against terrorism is best served by using our troops and resources in a counter-terrorism strategy against terrorist forces wherever they may locate and train;”
Are you f—ing serious? The best defense against terrorism isn’t ceasing to kill people and occupy their countries? The best approach is to use troops to provoke yet more hostility but to do so in multiple places?
“Whereas, the United States will continue to support the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and counterterrorism presence in the region;”
What about withdrawal and reparations?
Source: https://www.washingtonsblog.com
sending...
