Indefinite Military Detention Measure Passes On Bill Of Rights Day
“ . . . they say that granting the military explicit authority to investigate and detain terrorism suspects -- including Americans -- is vital to ensuring the nation can keep up with an adaptable and changing enemy threat.”
They always say that. This entire notion, a perception really, of a terrorist threat being defined as a war is completely at odds with reality. Congress declares war. It is impossible to declare war on something other than a state. You can't declare war on an emotion. You can't declare war on a person. And you can't declare war on a flavor of ice cream. But somehow, in the twisted versions of law that has surfaced since 9/11 you can declare War on Terror.
Let's be specific about what that means. : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear b : a frightening aspect: a cause of anxiety : worry: an appalling person or thing.
To be accurate then, and to make a point, the government has declared war on fear, those that inspire fear, anything frightful, the worrying associated with it, and appalling people or things. In other words, you've been duped again. All that was required was something to fear, followed by an unofficial declaration of war. There are wars against domestic violence, animal abuse, cancer, and pretty much anything else people find objectionable. So the fundamental premise of NDAA 2012 is flawed. Anything less than a army equipped by a recognized state cannot be the basis for a declaration of war.
But the War on Drugs proved that you can declare war on pretty much anything even when a traditional enemy doesn't exist. For instance, one could, without congressional approval, declare war on cholesterol or beer or yoga instructors. The world might be a better place in the end, but we know from experience that there is no way we'll ever be rid of cholesterol, beer or yoga instructors. Even if you could make progress, the “war” would be by interminable by definition; it would never end. So it is with the War on Terror. At least until terrorists become popular with the masses or cease to be terrifying which will never happen as long as there is money to be made by making sure the public remains terrified,
American history is full of examples of what could have been called acts of terrorism. There were the union-busting Pinkerton's for example, private thugs hired to hospitalize union organizers. There have been thousands of crazies that have found fleeting fame by committing isolated acts of violence that seemed connected to a cause but may not have been. The JFK assassination is a reminder that the definition of a terrorist act is strictly a perception of the beholder.
The contemporary definition seems to imply political or racial animosity. At some point however, making a serious attempt to arrive at a definition becomes a meaningless exercise in semantics. The profile of a terrorist is rather static even if TSA screeners don't want to acknowledge it. We are talking about religious zealots that justify mayhem and murder as the cost of doing business. It is also their trademark and their reason for being. Of course, every other reasonably sophisticated crime organization, as well as some former record executives, do the same thing. Are they not terrorists as well?
Well no, because their activities don't actually challenge the authority of politicians, financiers, law enforcement or other government officials with facts and data proving misconduct or malfeasance. They don't run around filing federal lawsuits. They don't write blogs about corruption. They don't question the system or authority. They can commit all the crimes they want and never have to worry about being labeled subversive, belligerent or a suspected terrorist.
For the typical organized criminal enterprise that commits violence, there is the protection of the courts and some application of civil rights. For critics of the government or the financial institutions, the only requisite is suspicion, so the new law is especially convenient for use against political adversaries and anyone else that impedes your path to re-election. This is nothing new. The political prisoner is as old as politics.
Any protest, or act of civil disobedience can be construed as a threat, belligerent in nature or even an act of war with the proper manipulation of the interpretation. It just happens that many in the Congress are very good at that, and the Justice Department can interpret the law any way they want to until an unlikely challenge occurs.
Unlikely, because the Patriot Act, the basis of this legislation, can only be challenged by the government at the Supreme Court level. That's right, unless the Justice Department decides to sue itself over its own abuse of Patriot Act powers, the law cannot be changed except by the legislature and the President. Only the few challenges at the district court level have allowed for dissenting opinions by federal judges, and most objections have already been overturned by the Ninth Circuit.
Patriot Act powers have not decreased along with the threat level. On the contrary, both the Bush and Obama administration have aggressively pursued increased powers and turned them on American citizens. The media black out on the passage of the NDAA this time was so conspicuous as to be a commentary on the legislation (and the mainstream media for refusing to report on it). Collectively, the unmistakable message sent was that this abominable legislation cannot withstand scrutiny.
A law that summarily obviates most of the U.S. Constitution is newsworthy. The Bill of Rights no longer exists. Is that not a story of interest to the people who will live under the new laws? When the House voted on it, there were exactly zero major news organizations reporting. Had it not been for alternative media, bloggers, radio talk show hosts and those with a mandate to report like Congressional Record, no one would have known the Constitution had put on a permanent hiatus.
"By withdrawing his threat to veto the NDAA, President Obama has abandoned yet another principled position with little or nothing to show for it," Parker said. "Amnesty International is appalled -- but regrettably not surprised."
The President has his hands full with the 2012, and as previously noted, the field of Republicans has been more of a comedy act than a nominating process. All the leading candidates have made gaffes, in the case of Rick Perry, serious questions regarding competence and intellectual capacity have been raised. Newt continues to be the leading GOP hypocrite as the early front-runners are now bringing up the rear despite collecting huge sums of money.
“USA Today-Gallup -- polling registered voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin -- found Obama trailing Romney 43-48, and Gingrich 45-48
“Because Obama is expected to hold the big states of California, New York and Illinois, he maintains a popular-vote advantage nationwide, where he leads Gingrich 50-44, and edges Romney 47-46.
“But the Electoral College math would deliver the White House to Republicans if they can carry the swing states, as the USA Today-Gallup poll shows.”
60 Minutes goes where Fox News fears to tread:
Fraud investigator speaks:
Prosecuting Wall Street Part 1 at this link:
This comment was found along with the video above:
by garrisonville December 15, 2011 12:38 AM EST
To Steve Croft:
- I saw your expose on Credit Default Swaps and it was good information for the unread. However, you left your buddies in government completely exonerated. Sure, some greedy operators took advantage of the situation, and this will always happen. Peeople aren't saints.
But you dealt with the symptoms and not the cause. What is the cause? Surely you know, otherwise you are not a qualified journalist. The cause comes from Congressional legislation.
CONGRESS IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. Despite good intentions, Congressional social programs and congressional mismanagement are the real culprits. They wrote the plans for this debacle.
I hope you would agree that our national prosperity was built on cheap available energy, secure capital investment and the efforts of innovative people.
Over the past 35 years, Congress has constrained available energy (oil and coal) from local sources, causing huge payments to other countries, and severely draining our available capital.
Over the past 25 years, Congress has contaminated the mortgage credit market by encouraging more and more bad loans to people who are unable to follow through. And then they packaged bad loans together with good loans, contaminating the financial credit market.
Over the past 15 years, Congress has also crippled our banks and businesses with "Mark to Market" handcuffs.
Over the past 12 years, Congress has turned our banking and credit insurance system into a wild west gambling den. with the elimiination of "Glas Steagal Act", and the OK for unregulated Credit Default Swaps (gambling). And neither of these has been retracted.
So how on earth do youu, Mr. Croft, lay the blame on some little guys and a few greedy companies into this clearly criminal Congressional debacle?
Where is the cry for prosecution of the Congressional conspirators?
And how will we fix the problem if we don't expose the root cause?
Seattle students walkout:
“Stalinist Communist dictatorship at its worst”