Lawless America, Former Allies Contemplate Invasion
America is growing increasingly isolated in the world. The problem isn't simply one of diplomacy, war crimes, or abuse of power.
Other nations are considering what might have been unthinkable: An invasion to subdue the Americans.
You can see it around America. People don't sense things are quite right. Take this example Click ] These were things we were taught happened to the Jews in the 1930s.
America's "great society" is in question.
American governance really has slipped quiet a bit.
I've been reviewing Hayden's earlier comments and testimony, and the State Secret case law, along with the VA Federal Distinct Court opinion on Rendition.
I'm not impressed, neither are many Americans, and the world has finally said, "enough."
They're no longer grumbling about it. They're thinking about doing something.
I'm going to bounce around a bit while I throw this on the table, but the main point is that America really doesn't have that much to stand on any more.
Sure, there are many people willing to get into America because they believe the propaganda and lies. But don't ask Americans to continue putting up with this non-sense.
Hayden's testimony during his CIA confirmation hearings was curious. He seemed as though he was in a different universe, talking about "law and order" and "concern for the rule of law."
The core problem is that the NSA -- as it was originally used and designed -- is geared toward foreign signals intelligence, and built upon the "big lesson" of Pearl Harbor, "never again." We then learn that in July 2001, two months prior to 9-11, people like Judith Miller well knew there were rumors of an impending attack.
Rather than kick the NSA is the rear end, the US government then turned that military weapon on the American public, ignored the laws, and then hid the entire thing behind the dubious ruse of, "We're violating your right to have a warrant, because we're doing this to protect you."
What a load of non-sense. If they were serious about the "big justification," then they would have done their jobs before 9-11. They didn't do that. Moreover, rather than follow the law, the Senate now wants to "move on" and "not worry" about the trivialities" of the Constitution. "Hey, we're doing this to protect you."
The issue with Rendition -- the illegally kidnapping of foreigners from one country outside or inside the US to another location for abuse, and denial of their rights -- is that it is illegal, a war crime, and a treaty violation. It doesn't matter what big story the US government, agents, or other people dream up, it's a violation of the laws of war, and our Constitution.
Think back to Guantanamo and the initial claims that prisoners were "not entitled" to a hearing. It took years for the courts to "get around to" finally saying, "You know, maybe they do have the right to a trial." Duh.
The point is that despite the clear constitution, every violation of that fundamental law -- whether it be on the battlefield, at home, or in another country where there is no lawful war -- the country acts as if we're in the pre-Viking days saying, "Wow, we really ought to look at whether we want to be Vikings, or Barbarians.
The main problem is that it takes forever -- four years is forever -- to get the US government to "feel like" looking at an issue. You'd think that five years after the Pearl Harbor-like event, this "big struggle" would be over. But they're using perma-war to justify more abuses, non-sense, and inaction.
By saying, "We not going to permit this claim about Rendition to go forward," what the US is saying is, "We have the superior right to violate the laws of war and treaties, and engage in kidnappings, but will not be held accountable for abuses."
That's no different than the Vikings, the ones in Europe not the sports team.
But there's a special charter or provision in the laws of war called "reciprocity" permitting civilians -- We the People -- to lawfully ignore those laws which a government violates to lawfully reciprocate.
This is how it works. The US government has openly admitted it is using illegal military force against American civilians. Under the laws of war, American civilians -- after they have exhausted all legal options -- may lawfully ignore those laws which prohibit certain types of behavior.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating illegal action, violence, or anything. Rather, I'm merely suggesting that the US government has a very large problem on its hand. By essentially ratifying illegal conduct, yet at the same time asserting a superior right to violate the law, the US government has admitted:
No government can claim legitimacy on that, regardless how many voters are deluded.
Mass hypnosis is not defense. The world has had enough.
Hayden and Mueller in Feb 2006 were asked by Senator Feinstein whether any Americans had been rendered. The point is that they openly discussed the issue of Rendition, something the court is asked to believe is, "Hands off."
The answer was a non-answer.
Today, in May 2006, we're asked to believe that the subject which Feinstein and Hayden discussed four months ago is now suddenly "off limits."
Someone is lying to the court.
Yet, using Senator Specter's creative "swearing in" rule -- namely, that even if someone doesn't get sworn in they can be held liable for false statements to Congress -- we're at a dilemma.
The US government in the Federal District Court in Virginia argued that the subject of Rendition cannot be discussed as it is a state secret. Obviously, the Congress -- which has been briefed in the Intelligence Committee -- doesn't agree, and does want to discuss the issue.
The point is that we have two sets of standards on whether Rendition is or is not an "appropriate" subject to be discussed in forums which include sanctions for false statements.
Kind of like the contrasting positions on the telecom billings: AT&T and others are denying do what Qwest flat out refused to do.
It's not the same. Someone is doing what should not be done.
The goal here is to ensure the abuse of power ends, not turn a blind eye.
Americans are not serious about self governance, and the world realizes that it’s a matter of time before they have to step in and impose this from without.
Self governance and sovereignty mean people do what should be done. Not this government and not Americans. Rather, this government asks us to believe that it is "doing the right thing," all the while refusing to permit that conduct to face scrutiny.
But we already know the following:
Both of these approaches -- for whatever reason -- are at odds with the law.
The issue before us is that the court has stated that there are "extraordinary" circumstances; and there may be errors.
Let's consider the latter -- That there may be errors -- first. If there is an error, it needs to be remedied.
Let's consider the former -- that these are extraordinary circumstances -- this is a judicial assertion, at odds with any finding of Congress. Congress has not said that Habeas is suspended; nor is there a rebellion. Moreover, it's not the role of the Court or the US attorney to assert "extraordinary circumstances" under FISA to ignore the SIGINT requirements. Further, the court does not have the power to characterize anything as "extraordinary" -- only Congress can do this.
Which leads us back to the state of affairs and the justification the Americans use to say, "Isn't this a great country -- you should move here." I question that conclusion, assertion, and characterization.
Moreover, it appears as though other nation have long held the same position, so I apologize for waking up late from my hypnosis.
Rather, by all accounts -- based on the abuse we've seen in the courts, overseas, and now in Baltimore, there's little separating the US from any other country on matters of law, civil society, and order.
Let's consider the essential elements of a civilized society:
But let's explore what is going on in America.
There is no higher priority than the Constitution. Some members of the Federal Government, Armed Forces, and Congress appear to have it in their heads that they have a superior oath that they can both rely on -- as an excuse to commit abuses -- and then use that position as a shield to accountability.
This is false. We all have an oath to protect the Constitution.
The oath is not to the country, not the people, and not to the government. In fact, we are told to renounce all loyalty to any state or herald.
The problem America has is that the real people -- We the People -- have a higher duty to the Constitution that is being thwarted by those who have a lower duty to non-Constitutional objectives.
This is a special class and loyalty which is akin to the Middle Ages, well after the Magna Charta was signed, and the real roots of the American Revolution. The problem before 1775 was that despite the 'Law of the land' -- the Magna Charta -- the governors had a higher loyalty to the King than the rule of law.
Today, in America there is no distinction. The American government agents put a higher loyalty to their party -- something that has no standing before the Constitution -- and use this loyalty to invoke excuses to avoid accountability.
Fortunately, under the laws of war, there are remedies. Where people violate the laws of war, there is The Hague.
Because these leaders assert the right -- however illegal it may be -- to engage in Kidnapping, then We the People may lawfully, under the principle of reciprocity, also violate that law of war.
Namely, just as this American government claims it is "extraordinary" that they "violate the laws of war," we too may make a similar assertion in that these are extraordinary times, and we too may violate the very laws this government ignores, refuses to investigate, and fails to enforce.
The problem is that in old times, when a government abuses its power this much, people would either do one of two things: They would either roll over, or they would fight.
Today, we have something different. We have The Hague, and the precedent of Nuremburg.
We also have something very special. This is called a free ability to choose. The old days, the King or leaders would rally the army to lock up those who failed to follow the absurdity.
Today, we aren't required to play that game. Rather, We the People may make new rules, and lawfully reciprocate: Lock up those who refuse to assert their oath.
That's what makes 2006 different than 1776. Today, we are in a position to say, "No," and there's nothing this government can do -- other than use force -- to compel us to assent to a non-Constitutional outcome.
The Constitution is on our side. That's all we have, and that's all we need.
Our loyalty and oath is not to any King or President; nor are we beholden to any Nation, land, or government.
Rather, when this government -- as it is now -- is at odds with that Constitution, we are no longer are bound by that document.
Rather, we may assert our simple rights of free people to stand up to this abuse, and we may lawfully reciprocate to those who refuse to honor the same.
We have to assert the rule of law, or other nations will. They are ready, Americans are not.
This government is flawed. Americans know about rendition, the war crimes, and the abuse of power; and there's nothing it can do to stop Americans from using all resources in our power to protect this Constitution.
We have no choice but to protect the rule of law; while other nations see they have no choice to preserve their sovereignty, before we take it from them.
We have to solve this. Is the solution to this problem to inject a third-tier of government, one between the States and the Federal Government -- and devised a check and buffer between the people, and the system that no longer honors its oath.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The point isn't "what is or isn't the solution" -- the point is that the solutions we have before us are not confined to a document that the government no longer assents to.
We can change the rules, we can make the government's job more difficult, and we can more easily place in jail those agents who defy their oath. The question is whether you want to do this; or whether you want to leave America and do this somewhere else.
If we don't solve this, other nations will.
America is no longer an absolute shining example of sterling silver. It has a reputation, but no longer a legacy of doing the right thing. The question is whether you are willing to stand up to those who abuse this power, and pretend it is "OK"; or whether you want to explore other options.
The point isn't that there is an "either or" option; the point is that what we have isn't "what we have to put up with." We have options. We are not required to assent to laws which are not enforced, ignored, violated, or explained away.
Nor are we required to follow leaders who defy their oath or say, "We have other things to worry about, besides the violations of the law, or the Constitution." Clearly, they've missed the point: There is no higher duty than the Constitution.
There needs to be a way to:
We need a lawful circuit breaker. We need something that is going to shut down funding, intervene, and force the leadership to do what they promise.
Let's think about what Hayden keeps saying: That warrantless surveillance is lawful. There's a problem with that warrant. The case law requires that when targeting Americans there needs to be a warrant; Hayden's retort is that they have procedures, and people within NSA making good decisions.
Be that as it may, our laws are not structured that way. The courts have already found that law enforcement -- as a government agent, which the NSA and Hayden are -- cannot be trusted to their own devices. Rather, our system is based on the presumption of the opposite: That others must oversee those who will and continue to abuse power.
There's nothing before us to suggest that when given more power, the government is to be trusted more; rather, the government is to be given less deference, and more scrutiny.
This is the essential flaw with the entire Bush regime approach to governance. They want more power and less oversight; then use that self-asserted mess -- that they created through their failures -- to then avoid oversight, accountability, and sanctions. The problem is that the courts assent to this absurdity.
We have options. We may lawfully reciprocate. We may lawfully violate the laws which this government no longer honors or respects. Those in the NSA and Executive Branch who support this illegal activity may lawfully be targeted -- as they illegally support through their continued support -- with kidnapping, rendition, and delivery to The Hague.
The issue before us is whether the US government and its agents require actual Renditions for them to realize that the American population is no longer bound to the laws which this government defies, fails to honor, and refuses to enforce.
That is what Americans are going to have to choose: Whether you want to:
Again, I'm not advocating violence, or illegal action. I'm am suggesting that until law and order returns, we're going to see more of the abuse we just saw in Baltimore because law enforcement -- and the American government in general, and its agents specifically -- perceive no consequences for arrogance.
Clearly, the US government has missed the lesson of Iraq (free people, when abused can and will stand up for themselves) Nazi Germany (abused people will ultimately prevail) and the USSR (flawed societies ultimately crumble) and the Roman Empire ( societies without regard to the laws, morals, or facts of budget constraints cannot survive).
Around the globe the world sees images of American standard of living, but they see through that. yes, there are many who desire to chase a standard of living and enter America, prompting the Senate to support a 370 mile wall on our Southern Border. Reagan said to Gorbachev, "Tear down that wall."
Who is going to tell America, "rebuild your Society" and "protect your Constitution"?
Silence.
If the Republicans are not willing to do this, and the Americans are not willing to do this, then the world will soon do this.
Where the unwilling and weak assent to lawlessness, others may intervene.
Think of Rawanda. The abuse cannot last forever. Eventually things will run their course.
But that course is unclear, especially when the leadership and nation choose to continue doing what is not permitted: Defy their oaths, ignore the rule of law, and make excuses.
Either Americans will assert the rule of law, or the world will take action.
The world is not willing to hinge its sovereignty and security on the good graces of the American electorate. Nor do they have confidence that Americans will finally get it and do the right thing.
Other nations, regardless what Americans do are already planning to do what Americans should have done long ago: Assert the rule of law.
It is up to Americans whether the rule of law is asserted by choice, or by force. The world knows that Americans are willing to use force to bring disasters. They have every right to bring force to America’s heartland to do the opposite: Restore civility.
Some may argue that this is disruptive, yet think back of the non-sense we heard about Iraq. We were told we would be greeted as liberators. Surely, other nations would assume the same.
Then again, it doesn't matter. For if other nations do nothing in America, American will do something in them.
Bush asserts the doctrine of pre-emption, something other nations take seriously, not simply as a threat, but a right to defend themselves from the American lawlessness.
Americans took time before WWII and Pearl Harbor to prepare. Some supported, many opposed, but the planning continued. Then on December 7th, the nation woke up, made a decision, and acted.
The world awaits that excuse, to finally rally against America.
Let's consider the local ruses for inaction at home. We've heard nothing but non-sense.
Consider the Feb 2006 testimony before Feingold. When asked "How many AlQueda are there," they all gave a response, "We’ll tell you in closed session" or "We're not sure."
Either the Senate did or did not get an answer; either the Senate did or didn't get a resolution: Whether the NSA activities are lawfully being used.
What we do know is that there are no warrants; the NSA activity is being used against Americans who may or may not be bonafide "agents"; and that the court has not been adequately involved.
I don't personally care what the technical reasons are for this, or what excuses the NSA gives. Their job is to ensure the laws -- not just the dubious claims of "privacy concerns" -- are followed.
Our laws say clearly: You shall have warrants. Period.
NSA keeps giving us a song and dance about "how it was difficult" or "the President says it’s OK" or "AG Gonzalez reviewed. . ."
Hay, he's the bottom line:
It doesn't add up. Your loyalty isn't to the United States. It's to the Constitution. You do not violate the law, nor do you make up excuses to ignore the laws in order to "do something else."
if you were serious about "what you say you are serous about -- whatever that is" -- then you would have done that prior to Sept 2001. You didn't do that.
Here are the options for the US commanders, which obviously you're free to ignore.
Given that you're dealing with American civilians, and that the information you're collecting is compartmentalized -- you really have no way of knowing that you are or are not following the law.
Rather, what we do know is that despite clear laws against kidnapping, the Italian courts are going to make some decisions on Rendition.
Is that the kind of "Constitutional system" you are fighting for -- one that will "defer" all obligations to other countries? If that's the case, why are you bothering to have anyone believe you're serious about your oath?
Fine, for each day that you pretend your oath is something, you get paid. Brilliant. Meanwhile, your real obligation -- the Constitution -- is getting trashed.
Questions:
Here's your problem: You have no legal authority to engage in warrantless interrogations and Renditions of American citizens -- and we know fully well what is going on. If this activity "was not going on," then you would not have offered people settlements to keep quiet about what is going on.
Where is this going? It's up to you.
If you want to wage illegal war against Americans -- as you have already started to do -- then it is up to you what happens next.
You are outnumbered. You are losing in Iraq. Forces on the battlefield in Iraq are currently engaging your peers.
Now you know what's going on.
If you want your Constitution, you're going to have to stand up for it. If you do not want your Constitution, then keep doing what you're doing.
You have to choose which side of the rule of law you're going to stand.
The rule of law is going to prevail. Either Americans are going to do this from within, or Americans are going to have this imposed from without.
One option is politics, and that is preferred. The second option, waiting for that rule of law to be imposed from without is far less civil.
Americans must choose whether you are serious about self-governance, sovereignty, and doing what must be done to enjoy what few real freedoms you have left. You cannot preach to the world about things you do not have nor respect. Rather, the world is fully prepared to shut down the debate, and lawfully impose those standards on you. You will either cooperate, or you will be forced to cooperate.
The world is starting to see that Americans are not serious about cooperating or being civil. Know that within the backrooms of foreign lands America is being targeted. Not because of your freedom or way of life, but because you refuse to practice what you preach.
America is no different than Nazi German or Imperial Japan. It may take time before the world stands up, but in the end the current momentum cannot sustain itself. This will end, either by lawfully adjusting this from within, or from without.
If you choose to pretend this is not happening, you are going to lose.
You wished this.
posted by Constant @ 9:02 AM
<< Home