Regardless of who was really behind them and why, chances are the Boston Marathon bombings would not have happened if unconstitutional laws like AUMF 2001 and NDAA 2012 Sec 1021 were not on the books.
Monday's Boston Marathon bombing killed 3 Americans and wounded more than 170 others. It was clearly an act of terrorism, but as with 9/11 no terrorist organization has thus far claimed responsibility. That's seen by some as an indication that the act was state-sponsored. If so, what state?
AUMF 2001 (PL 107-40) did not target the "terrorists" behind the 9/11 attacks. Its target was and is the taxpaying American citizen. Here are the only two ways to take yourself out of the crosshairs.
If you ask most Americans how many World Trade Center towers were demolished on 9/11, they'll say 2. The correct answer is 3. If you remind them that WTC-7 came down as well as WTC-1 and WTC-2, and then ask them how many World Trade Center towers were struck by airplanes or seriously damaged by debris, they'll usually say 3. The correct answer is 2. Remind them of THAT, however, and you are immediately labelled a 9/11 truther or conspiracy nut.
The "truth" may well be, however, that most Americans simply don't want to think about what really happened at World Trade Center 7 and elsewhere on 11 September 2001 because it forces them to question either (a) the laws of physics and logic or (b) what they were told happened by their government. The cognitive dissonance generated is too much for their media-brainwashed minds to handle, so they block it out and you along with it.
Veteran rights activist calls on American grandparents and other concerned citizens to join #AumfHungerStrike, a nationwide hunger strike to last until AUMF 2001, the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, is repealed.
At 6:00am ET on 27 March 2013 world record holding long distance motorcycle rider and lifelong civil liberties activist IronBoltBruce began a fast that will not end - in his words - "...until AUMF 2001 is gone or I am."
The post 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force is at the root of many evils including an Imperial Presidency, unconscionable drone strikes and unconstitutional indefinite detention under NDAA 2012.
We have been calling on you to rise up against the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012 since corporate fascist puppet Democratic president Barack Obama signed it into law on New Year's Eve 2011.
WE HAVE BEEN WRONG.
NDAA 2012 is only one symptom. AUMF 2001 is the disease.
While mainstream media keeps the Sheeple distracted with Christmas classics and inconsistent reporting about killings in Connecticut, Amerika's corporate fascist puppet Congress quietly hacks away at habeus corpus.
You're read the headline and you said: WTF? Indefinite Detention is unconstitutional. Actually no, it isn't. More than 70 years ago, a law was passed in Congress to allow this to happen. Let me explain
"When Obama signed to law the NDAA: Indefinite Detention, did you know that there was precedence and what Obama did was "legal"? How was it legal? Another Democratic President did the same thing...Roosevelt...when he signed Executive Order 9066 rounding up more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry. Congress passed: Public Law 77-503 (http://tinyurl.com/y3mw86) giving power to the military to detain American citizens during times of war.
Three men broke the law by not obeying Public Law 77-503 by not going to the concentration camps. They were arrested. They were Min Yasui, Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi. More than 40 years later, all three men were found not guilty under coram nobis (http://tinyurl.com/8gxco9w) and their conviction records were overturned. But what about Public Law 77-503? Many attorneys say: because of coram nobis, Public Law 77-503 was legally overturned, mainly because of judicial review. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn a law created by Congress if they deem unconstitutional. No they don't.
ARTICLE III (http://tinyurl.com/ct4xuvu) does not give the power to the SCOTUS to overturn P.L. 77-503. Only Congress has the power. And because Congress has the power, Not one member of Congress, from 1942 to 2012, in 70 years, challenged P.L. 77-503. And because of what the Democratic party did 70 years ago, the Democratic Party 70 years later is just continuing the legacy."
I just want to give all the members of OWS heads up and I hope you share this.