"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is at hand.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
IS AMERICA DOOMED?
For immediate Release:
Washington D.C.
12:20am January 1, 2013
The National Defense Authorization Act Supreme Enforcement Branch Declares Martial Law!
Tens of thousands of insurgent criminal militia terrorists have been captured from the Northeast sectors where loyal government citizens have been enlisted to form a Homeland Guard to bolster the ranks of U.S. military and police forces under Homeland security command where defection has seriously weakened lawful U.S. Armed Forces.
Following the unprecedented civil unrest when President-Elect Morrison White was assassinated, our sitting Commander in Chief invoked the National Defense Authorization Act and formed the Supreme Enforcement Branch consisting of members from all three branches of government to oversee the sectors of the nation where loyal forces still control the State and local governments. The President is still somewhere in his secret command center consolidating our foreign allies to contract with friendly nations still recognizing our lawful right of governance.
With the division with our NATO General who by treason recognized the States that illegally succeeded from the Union, The Supreme Branch has combined authority of all three branches to save our nation from this insurgency.
Texas, Montana, Arizona much of the south east and Orange County and San Diego in California including the Pacific Fleet are still in enemy hands.
The new Department of Information is still fighting the cyber battle where the lies and disinformation of "The Illegal Shadow Government" that Morrison White declared he would destroy once in office and was the fuse that ignited so much of the riots up to and after his assassination by his own followers who recognized his paranoia was dangerous.
The Supreme Branch calls on all patriots to support our noble cause of unity and peace and report all anti government activity at once.
Fiction?
Fact: Secret sites built for American protestors.
The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face
[Updated below.] If Obama does one thing for the remainder of his presidency let it be a veto of the National Defense Authorization Act – a law recently passed by the Senate which would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists.
President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?
President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act after months of debate.
One thing I love about writing on technology is that it’s a subject always filled with hope and optimism. For every frightening use of technology by oppressive governments there’s a corresponding story about the use of that same technology to overcome oppression. For every story of police abuse I’ve read, there’s another story about corruption and violence exposed by something as simple as a camera phone. But can technology help us overcome truly pernicious legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act recently signed by the president? The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil. “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial. There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial. “Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.” The NDAA Makes the Status Quo WorseGlenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state. “The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.” “The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo,” he continues. “That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have thepower to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.” In part the National Defense Authorization Act helps to preserve the status quo established a decade ago with the original provisions in the PATRIOT Act giving the government broad new powers in the so-called War on Terror. In part the bill expands those powers, codifying the use of indefinite detention of foreign nationals and possibly US citizens arrested abroad and at home. In part the bill expands the use of the US military on domestic soil, at once complicating anti-terrorism strategies at home and raising serious questions about the role of the military in law enforcement. All these things should make Americans – and not just Americans – very nervous about the preservation of their civil liberties. That precarious balance between security and liberty is looking ever more tilted toward the former and away from the latter. The History of Anti-Terrorism is Bad News for Civil Liberties Just as troubling, these laws suggest that the legal apparatus available to us is insufficient to the task. While due process may work for any other criminal act, terrorism is unique and requires new and expanded powers that ignore the Constitution. These powers are necessary until “hostilities end” – as though terror itself can ever be extinguished. In the 1970′s the British government began passing a series of anti-terrorism laws that did many of the same things the US government has done since 9/11. At the time, detention without charge was expanded to seven days. Various other powers of arrest and detention were written into law, and these provisions were expanded gradually through the 1980′s as the British government continued to wage its war against the Irish Republican Army. Far from wiping these laws from the books when the IRA disarmed, many of these laws were simply reinforced by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act and the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. The problem with fighting a war on terror is that it’s in many ways a war on ideas. The IRA may have disbanded, but that didn’t stop terror from taking a new shape in the form of Al-Qaeda. Britain’s struggle against Irish dissidents may have been a good excuse for earlier anti-terror legislation, but Islamic radicalism is just as potent a threat. You Can’t Wage a War on an Idea In the United States the Cold War had barely ended before the threat of terrorism replaced it and, in some ways, became an even more urgent reason to expand government power at the expense of privacy and civil liberties. Unlike the Cold War, Americans have actually died in the War on Terror. Also unlike the Cold War, the enemy we face is not embodied in another country or people, but rather in a form. Terrorism is a tactic, not a state. It is used to create overreaction in its targets. The initial reaction by the US government to the 9/11 attacks was understandable but wrong-headed. Over a decade after that national tragedy, the government is still overreacting. Each time we allow our fear to undermine our freedom we concede to the very terrorists we hope to defeat. “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders in a statement. “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans.” Technology, Social Media, and Grassroots Activism Online Can Help Combat Bad Legislation Support for the National Defense Authorization Act is decidedly bipartisan. Opponents like Senator Sanders (an independent who describes himself as a socialist) and Rand Paul (a Republican and a libertarian) also come from both sides of the aisle. The same people tend to be opponents of other civil-liberty-quashing bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, two bills being debated in congress which would give the government and the industry sponsors of the bills broad new powers over the internet and freedom of speech online. To me, this underscores the need to look beyond politics as usual. Technology is changing the way institutions, governments, and individuals interact. The symmetry of power is shifting and governments and non-state actors alike are scrambling to keep up. Sometimes this creates real security threats. Hacking outfits like Anonymous present a real challenge to governments and corporations. At times these groups may act honorably, attempting to expose corruption. At times they may act without such noble intentions. Either way there is no denying that security is an issue going forward and that the overreaction of governments to a myriad security risks poses its own set of problems and challenges. I’ve written in the past that people concerned with civil liberties should begin to walk away from the old left-right dichotomy entirely and focus on electing civil libertarians to congress whether these are members of the left like Russ Feingold or of the right like Rand Paul. Of course, both Paul and Feingold will fall short of the ideal civil libertarian when it comes down to it, but both are a far cry better than 90% of their colleagues. We have few options available to us at this point. The NDAA may be challenged in the courts, and this will almost certainly happen if the president (or a future president) actually makes use of the powers related to US citizens. Even then, however, the courts could come down on either side. The Supreme Court is not exactly filled to the brim with civil libertarians. Until that time, however, we can try to abandon politics-as-usual and focus on electing politicians who care more about curtailing government excess than expanding government power endlessly in our never-ending War on Terror. And we can use technology, social media, and other tools at our disposal to act outside of politics altogether to work to create alternate institutions and communities. Look at what Reddit has done with its boycott of GoDaddy.com – now the online community is planning to unseat a congressman (or two or three) over the SOPA/PIPA legislation. The power of online activism is only just emerging. Technology may only be a tool, but I think we’ll discover that it’s a powerful one. So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for limited government. What Americans are now facing is quite literally the end of the line. We will either uphold the freedoms baked into our Constitutional Republic, or we will scrap the entire project in the name of security as we wage, endlessly, this futile, costly, and ultimately self-defeating War on Terror. Over at Wired, Spencer Ackerman gives us the long and short of things:
There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force” can be held in military custody “without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Those hostilities are currently scheduled toend the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.
But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
An amendment that would limit military detentions to people captured overseas failed on Thursday afternoon. The Senate soundly defeated a measure to strip out all the detention provisions on Tuesday.
So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.
I seriously don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative or a libertarian or a Zen anarchist. So long as you aren’t Carl Levin or John McCain, the bill’s architects, you can join the Civil Liberties Caucus. Spencer writes:
Weirder still, the bill’s chief architect, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), tried to persuade skeptics that the bill wasn’t so bad. His pitch? “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” he said on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill would just letthe government detain a citizen in military custody, not force it to do that. Reassured yet? Civil libertarians aren’t. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said it “denigrates the very foundations of this country.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “it puts every single American citizen at risk.”
This is what I mean: Give me Rand Paul and Al Franken any day of the week over the Levins and McCains of the Senate. We need more elected officials with the sensibility of Ron Wyden or Al Franken* on the left, or Rand Paul on the right. Right and left are such shoddy, ad hoc descriptors these days anyways. What’s truly at stake when we start talking about Big Government and such is far more dangerous and preposterous than high marginal tax rates. We’re talking about the stripping away of our most basic freedoms. We’re talking about a potential state that can call me a terrorist for writing this blog post and then lock me up and throw away the key. What’s the line from Batman? The night is always darkest just before the dawn. I like to think that’s true, because times seem awfully dark these days. * Update: Actually, Franken voted for the NDAA so never mind. He’s also sponsoring the PROTECT IP Act which would clamp down on free speech online. Second Update (Dec. 17th): The National Defense Authorization Act passed. Senator Al Franken withdrew his support from the bill, stating: “I voted against this bill because it contains provisions on detention that I find unacceptable. While I voted for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. And that didn’t happen. “The bill that came before the Senate today still includes several troubling provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they’re captured in the U.S. What’s more, provisions like these could ultimately undermine the safety of our troops stationed abroad. And just yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified in a Senate hearing that I attended about his deep concerns with the detention provisions and their potentially harmful effects on our counterterrorism efforts. “Today is the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn’t the way to mark its birthday.” I will have a follow-up post to address this and other arguments surrounding the controversial legislation up soon. Please don’t hesitate to send me thoughts, tips, and feedback.
Why? These Three Reasons
2 Chronicles 7:
14If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
15Now my eyes shall be open, and my ears attentive unto the prayer that is made in this place.
16For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there forever: and my eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.
17And as for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded you, and shall observe my statutes and my judgments;
18Then will I establish the throne of your kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David your father, saying, There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel.
19But if you turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them;
20Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.
21And this house, which is exalted, shall be an astonishment to everyone that passes by it; so that he shall say, Why has the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house?
22And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshiped them, and served them: therefore has he brought all this evil upon them.
No comments:
Post a Comment