It feels very much like a deep black hole in the information age.
The below articles provides the missing pieces to a very complex puzzle that causes one pause.
Presidential Assassinations of U.S. Citizens
Last week, Glen Greenwald of Salon.com wrote about a shocking revelation buried in a Washington Post article by Dana Priest which described how the Obama administration has adopted the Bush policy of targeting selected American citizens for assassination if they are deemed by the President to be "terrorists". As The Washington Times' Eli Lake reports, Adm. Dennis Blair was asked about this program at a Congressional hearing Tuesday and he acknowledged its existence:
The U.S. intelligence community policy on killing American citizens who have joined al Qaeda requires first obtaining high-level government approval, a senior official disclosed to Congress on Wednesday.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in each case a decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen must get special permission. . . .He also said there are criteria that must be met to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen that include "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved."
Where have we heard words like those before?
It is quite a dangerous situation the American people find themselves in, although as a whole, we just don’t know it yet. I am going to do my best attempt to explain why.
It's bringing the frog to a slow boil.
In 1930’s Austria they called it "Creeping Gradualism".
We used to be against tyranny in this country. We fought and won World Wars against it. We fought and won the Revolutionary War for the same reason.
We are a nation completely blind to what is to become of us, what danger awaits us, but I believe that before we know it we are all in danger of being deemed "a threat to other Americans" simply because we don't like the loss of our freedoms and we are organizing to push against this monolithic governmental empire they are creating.
Flashback: We were already identified as potential terrorists in the DHS directive last April. The (U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment document clearly states " the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization."
My concerns run deep on this issue and although it has constantly nagged me for nearly a year, I just couldn’t put my finger on what was bothering me so deeply - besides the obvious, of course. I knew something was drastically wrong, but I didn’t have all the pieces.
Adding the revelation of presidential directive to the puzzle last week and this newest article today, “Obama Admin wants to track cellphones; 'Americans enjoy NO reasonable expectation of privacy', I feel a chill so deep that no Florida sun can penetrate. All the pieces have tumbled into place in my mind.
This President will try Abdulmutallab the pantibomber, KSM of USS Cole fame (whose tribunal he stopped after his admission of guilt at the military trial), and Hasan the infamous soldier slayer in US Civilian Courts.
Obama via Holder will afford them constitutional protection. He has mirandized them. They have just finished trying Pakistani Scientist Aafia Siddiqui and found her guilty of two counts of attempted murder of US Soldiers in Civilian Criminal Courts - yet he ORDERS assassinations on US Citizens without benefit of trial?
At least Bush was consistent in his directive (if that can be considered a plus at all) - but this president acts without the equality of the thing and orders the murder of Americans at the same time he fiercely protects terrorists. Not only that, but he calls it racism to do otherwise.
Do we at all understand what this means to those of us born and raised in America? To the everyday natural citizens of these United States?
Do we know what criteria they are using to determine these American citizens are "terrorists"?
Is it just the newly granted citizens, those who are now known to be terrorists but who somehow made it through citizenship without detection - or is it something far more insidious, something that we only got a whiff of in last April’s DHS missive?
What are the criteria Mr. President? List it out for us, please.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Is it simply okay to give admitted terrorists access to our Constitutional Rights, yet not afford our own citizens those same rights?
Apparently that is our brave new world of hope and change.
The Freedom Stealing Trifecta and One Party Rule
4 Patriot Act
4 Executive Decisions/Directives
4 Congressional Pseudo-Wars
The Patriot Act has effectively suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus for American Citizens.
It allows them to search us at will and detain us indefinitely under "suspicion".
It affords us NO access to speedy trials or even an attorney on the "assumption" that we are a threat.
Apparently it also allows them to assassinate us.
Yet they afford admitted terrorists fair trials with our tax dollars even when they are caught trying to set off a bomb in their panties on a planeload of Christmas Vacationers! SCOTUS stripped us of our right to have an attorney present in May of last year, but this apparently doesn’t apply to terrorists.
The entire purpose of habeas is to say, “Look at me! I’m being detained/abused/disenfranchised contrary to law”. If there’s no writ available, the result is that the government can hold you “against the law”. Since the writ encompasses the full scope of our Constitutional rights, it’s a logical conclusion is to say that while it’s suspended, Americans currently have NO exercisable constitutional rights.
My heart is heavy and my mind is boggled by this as I witness and hear of case after case against our Constitutional and God given rights. Fathers denied their children, children on no fly lists who cannot find recourse to be removed, citizens who are subjected to unlawful search and seizures, and the list goes on and on.
Effectively, they are saying they have all power to do all things because Congress has given the powers of Military License and Force to "protect" citizens, while in reality they take away ALL our liberties in the Patriot Act.
The President, by saying “I can kill you at will because I am the President of the United States and I believe you to be a "terrorist" threat.”, literally means you have a "free for all" from the government’s perspective.
The door has slammed shut on your freedoms.
Creeping gradualism is no longer creeping, my friends, the serfdom has arrived.
What is considered our most basic liberty, our writ of habeas corpus, was finally and completely removed between the trifecta of the AUMF of 2001, the Executive Directive of assassination, and The Patriot Act. All of this because of the very terrorists we are mirandizing right now.
We The People vs The Machine
The Constitution of the United States very clearly states:
1) Congress has the power to declare war.
2) Constitutional provisions cannot be altered by statute.
Based on those 2 points, it is interesting to note that Congress has not actually declared war since Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania on June 5, 1942. They have however, declared many Military Engagements and AUMF's (Authorizations of Use of Military Force) as the functional equivalent of a declaration of war.
In Point 2, nothing in the Constitution can be reasonably construed to allow Congress to reallocate powers to themselves in a more palatable or politically expedient manner. Yet that is precisely the effect the War Powers Resolution, by which "AUMFs" are passed, has done.
It has given them all encompassing political power.
In a time such as this with One Party Rule, this use becomes especially apparent as it did in the late 70’s, the early 90’s, the early to mid 00’s and now again this past year. The problem is that without the checks and balances, soon you become a single party system as seen in the 30’s and 40’s Austria, Germany, China, and are witnessing in Venezuela today through Chavez and his "istas".
Additionally, that is exactly how those currently in Congress intend to continue to use it to order to remain in power with the recent (Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey and the rise of the TEA Party) threats to their One Party Rule status. See Will Obama Play the War Card?
The War Powers Resolution limits Presidential authority in the use of force without an official resolution or declaration of war by Congress.
The controversial question then becomes, "Where the provisions therein are consistent with the Constitution". According to Wikipedia, in an argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt, it states that
"The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception". The Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by propriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized."
Bobbitt also argues that "A democracy cannot ... tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.”
Based on the in depth analysis of this explanation, the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war, but it does not authorize Congress to declare Military Force, License or pseudo-wars whether or not they are politically expedient. The “preconception” is actually a misconception and a severe one at that.
3) In light of points 1 and 2, regardless of what Congress may have done, purposed or purports to do in the way of authorizing force, the AUMF is constitutionally a “brick short” of a war declaration.
This leaves the question of whether we have a need to consider or obey the war-time powers of the President - as they have not actually been constitutionally activated.
Logic dictates that the Executive Decision of the President to Assassinate US Citizens is then simply a legal loophole to authorize sending out “hit men” on American Citizens because he (or any of the organizations that he may empower) arbitrarily deem them to be terrorists.
In light of the DHS directive, secret watch lists and any number of things the American public cannot possibly know about, this indeed is a very dangerous position to find ourselves in as average Americans.
4) The Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment states quite clearly that government shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law.
A secret, unilateral, unreviewable determination that an individual is a “terrorist” by the President doesn't in any way, shape or form constitute "due process".
The Door Slamming Shut
The problem we face with this directive doesn't lie with shooting an enemy combatant who is shooting at us, regardless of whether that person is a US Citizen, nor does it include fighting true terrorists. It certainly doesn't concern capturing them, imprisoning them, interrogating them, or killing them before they kill us as those are all "normal" war time activities.
No, the problem lies with effectively calling out a "hit" on an American Citizen whom they arbitrarily determine is a risk, without due process, without a jury of our peers, without known proof or warning, while at the same time securing those same constitutional rights to known enemy combatants and war criminals they have just denied the newly declared American citizen “terrorist”.
Here are two very specific stances of our most recent President's:
1) Targeting specific individual citizens whom they believe have ill intent and ordering them shot on sight, presumably “in other countries”, although Blair didn’t actually use those parameters in his description of the directive.
2) The fact is that they view the world as their battlefield in this AUMF, including hits on citizens of the US, sending drones, secret or pseudo secret actions in Yemen, Pakistan and any other country they damn well please, without concern to collateral damage or definitive proof.
There is war, then there is just playing dirty. I understand that sometimes during war, playing dirty is collateral - it's called strategy - but this is beyond that. This is simply playing dirty most of the time, more so on American Citizens than on the actual enemy. An enemy who consistently breaks the rules of engagement no less: who has no uniforms, no marching orders, just murderous intent regardless of the collateral damage it may cause. In fact, they delight in murdering innocent citizens on their way to work or home for the holidays.
In reality, what highlights an American Citizen as a "terrorist"? Do we know?
We have no idea their criteria, but we have hints to what it might be that constitutes a "terrorist".
4 We have the Terrorist Watch list. Many of us left-titled "right wing extremists" (who are actually just natural and patriotic citizens) are probably teetering on the brink of being on that one because this president doesn't like dissent for his policies. In fact the DHS report says as much.
We may very well reside there simply because we are either Veterans, don't believe in abortion, do believe in the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, or we “cling” to our bibles. What of those who act as recruiters to community organizing conservatives, are bloggers, tea partiers, or any other ludicrous thing they can think of to include to marginalize and attack us?
4 We have the "No Fly List" (which houses untold natural US citizens), and
4 We have recent “questionable” citizenships they examine – unless, of course, they are Muslim – for that would be racist profiling.
4 Furthermore we have no access to any of the above lists, nor do we know if we, as an individual sit on either of the first two “lists”, and if we do, why we are there. We apparently can't find recourse to be removed from said list as recent revelations by those who find themselves on said list can attest.
This leads to the very real conclusion that anyone on a no fly list, a government deemed “right wing extremist” or virtually anyone the government targets could realistically be shot on sight or meet some other fatal event, even though he may have no prior knowledge of being on some list somewhere. The question that follows this conclusion then is: would that include his or her traveling companions as well? What if there are children around this big bad townhall attendee, veteran or tea partier?
Who’s to say since the world is the administrations battlefield, that regular people couldn’t meet with some “unfortunate accident” in their own backyard or driving to work one day? Who’s to say it couldn’t be one of us? Will we be shocked then?
The meaning of this executive directive is simply too broad, too secret, too arbitrary and far too outside the confines of the Constitutional boundaries under which our leaders rule. When considering we have 8 year olds who have been battling to be removed from the no fly list for 3 years, who are surely no danger to the US, it is highly likely there are other innocents who have been deemed dangerous to the US. I can easily extrapolate that list could include those of us who disagree with this president’s policies, whom he has already called out as “extremists”, and of which the DHS has further extrapolated the term to mean “terrorists” - or at the very least “terrorists in the making”.
The fact is that individual citizens have no chance to defend themselves against such a charge and it is a charge unbeknownst to them in most cases. They are a target and the President can simply say “just take them out”. That quickly. POOF! You are no more.
Combine those facts with the newly revealed adjacent "policy" that tells us the government has purposely allowed known terrorists into the US for Surveillance purposes. A policy which obviously has the potential to foment war upon the citizens of these United States, since such a one could escape surveillance easily enough in order to do the dirty deed they came here to do.
For good measure add in the loss of our economic freedoms that has been proven to have been brought upon us through a combination of congress, President’s (CFR and redistribution initiatives), cabinet appointees (deregulation of SEC trading rules), and the purposeful, proven “negligence” of the Federal Reserve. It becomes clear that we now have quite a dangerous stew of policies going on in this country today. Policies that should deeply disturb all of us.
We can’t fight it, we don't know exactly what it is. Even if we did, they won’t listen because it contains their belief in superiority, their political expediency to remain in control, and entitled elitism. Nor do we have the funds left to flee or to protect ourselves against it, which is exactly the definition of our "economic freedoms".
They are playing quite dangerously with the rights afforded us by our constitution: our safety, security, privacy, redress, petition, protest, due process, economic freedom, and our personhood rights - those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are manipulating with their pseudo-war time activities. They are playing in such a way as to endanger ALL US Citizens, not just those deemed “bad seed” - and they dare say we the people are the threat to this country?
Are we a threat to their policies through peaceful resistance? I certainly hope we are.
Are we a threat to their plans to stay in power through the web of campaign contributions, States of Emergencies and further pseudo-war actions they themselves have built? We had better be.
Are we a threat to their ever increasing credit lines and their license to makes us all serfs?
If we aren’t, we might as well hand over our property and simply lie down in the coffin now, for we can all be labeled “terrorist serfs” now.
Additional Recommended Reading: "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. A study of the takeover of a people by Nazi Germany.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment