Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
This Coup and The Next One
I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
If there's another 9/11 under this regime ... it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.
Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? ... They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they're not now they will be after another 9/11.
And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran - an escalation - which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps, mainly for Middle Easterners but not exclusively.
It's a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran's reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. ...
This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.
Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration of her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don't think so.
Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in - and there's no move to do this at this point - unless that happens I don't see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
The Next Coup
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It's not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That's the next coup, that completes the first.
The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, ... what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world - in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.
There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution. What I swore as a Marine officer and State and Defense Department official-along with every other officer and official and member of Congress-to defend the Constitution against, along with foreign enemies.
I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have today.
That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren't found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.
It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president - elected or not - with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
When I say this I'm not saying they are traitors. I don't think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country - but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.
They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we're getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says "I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate."
It's [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
Founders Had It Right
Now I'm appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.
It's not just "our way of doing things" - it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control; because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.
That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which is crazy even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which are accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places:. That is consensual in our establishment. ...
But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don't mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it's not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn't, it doesn't even make it unlikely.
That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress - Democrats and Republicans - and the public and the media, we have freed the White House - the president and the vice president - from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.
And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.
And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. ... I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.
What I'm talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
And ... we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that's where we're heading. That's a very ugly, ugly prospect.
However, I think it's up to us to work to increase that perhaps small- anyway not large - possibility to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.
Restoring the Republic
Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don't get started now, it won't be started under the next administration.
Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can't be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little...
We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, "traitor," "weak on terrorism" - names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.
How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, for example. To change their priorities and their performance as Democratic leaders in the House and Senate? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn't just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to obey superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it, when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.
I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath, which I eventually came to do.
I've often said that Lt. Ehren Watada - who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war - is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously his obligation to uphold his oath.
The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. They can stop doing that. And that's the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
Congressional Courage
On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate - and frankly, of the Republicans too - that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected, or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
I'm not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they're acting like it's their sole concern. Which is business as usual. "We have a majority, let's not lose it, let's keep it. Let's keep those chairmanships." Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we ... get back habeas corpus. The limiting of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the Third, it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.
We need some way of recalling to recalling to them their obligations; and Ann Wright and Ray McGovern had one way, of sitting in in Conyers' office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern was pushed out of the Petraeus hearing the other day for saying the simple words "swear him in" when it came to his testimony.
I think we've got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it's only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from madmen in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.
And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves willing to uphold their oaths any more than the civilians. They might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, yet would not and will not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.
That has to change. And it's the example of people like those up here who might bring home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and to find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
80 Comments so far
Show Allstepfour September 27th, 2007 5:03 pm
"Is Ellsberg ready to desert the Democratic party? www.xdem.org"
Don't just leave the Democrats. Go Green:
www.gp.org
gimmesometruth asks (perhaps for many of us) simply:
I ask, in all earnestness, what do you suggest that I do?
---------------------------
what to do
what to do
first thing is to know this is going to get ugly.
someone's gonna get hurt.
either on the streets or in the fema camps.
whether we like it or not we are going to find out how much courage we have - all of us.
soon.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
yeats_the second coming.
what to do?
spend some time with your loved ones.
right now, we are the passengers in a plane that is in deep trouble. looking at each other.
or maybe, we are in the front seat of a cheap ford about to hit the wall at 150 mph.
so, first thing to do is think about what you are really prepared to do.
i mean really.
Having read Mr. Ellsberg' insightful analysis and the many thoughtful reader comments, I would like to ask a question that I have been pondering for a very long time: How many of you actually believe that the current administration will allow the November 2008 elections to be held at all? Will Code Orange suddenly be increased to Code Red pending or following an attack on Iran; martial law declared; and the elections "temporarily" suspended?
michele:
If they have the power to prevent elections, they have the power to subvert the other party. They'll chose the less obvious of the two subversions.
Daniel Ellsberg's analysis leaves "us" a threatening pariah, primed to spring at all "we" have a notion to. But events do not occur in vacuums. Some one, or several, of our "enemies" will mine enough large centers of population and remaining industry with the ultimate weapons. The caged hawks in their bunkers will ascend after a time and will discover irradiated ruins, canaled urban canyons and rubbish-piled infrastructures, their insane gamble a greater risk than dreamed.
As usual, we're seeming to be more interested in exercising our right to piss into the wind and not pay attention to ideas that have merit like iyamwutiam's idea of pulling money out of the system as a statement. Seems to me that it would have a huge impact. A lot more than standing on a street corner with a sign as people just drive by or around you would. I really think it would be worth trying. Anyone else paying attention?
Just wondering...does anyone think that a few brave, under-OATH air force souls acted to thwart the B52 bombers carrying the nukes to Barksdale AFB on Aug.30th?...those 6 nukes were possibly on the way to Iran, says much buzz in the blogs, though the official line is that it was a "mistake" that the nukes were loaded. I have also learned that a couple of those air force men involved died mysteriously in the following 2weeks. Many people have speculated on the correlation between the Israel attack on Syria on the 5th of Sept. and the nuke flight days earlier. Maybe something BIG did get stopped. At least for a while, until...?
So, in response to Ellsberg's thoughts on people acting bravely under oath to serve us as Americans, I have been considering that maybe some in the military have been trying to prevent an attack on Iran. I have been getting the creeps that there are indeed some vile "gotcha" tactics being used...and maybe these threaten our political leaders too. I hope they can stand up to these forces somehow.
Whatever the case, I think there are dark forces amuck. God and our hearts and our honesty help us!
After six and a half years of Democratic collaboration with the Bush Republicans, people still think the Dems are knights in shining armour ready to rescue us from the criminal-in-chief.
Can somebody please explain why, after watching the treacherous Pelosi, Reid and their ilk since the 2006 elections, too many still think the Democrats have a different agenda than their cohorts on the 'other side' of the isle?
Am I paronoid or what?
Dear Sparkemup and Kathlyn- THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
For the rest - I think the financial implications may need time to sink in after somethought has been put to it.
So first a little first aid:
Nowadays a bank only needs 7 percent of cash on hand- so if you gave me 7 cents I could lend out a dollar- if you gave me 10K then I could lend out close to 150K and if you gave me a million I could lend out 150 million dollars!!! Have you not noticed the biggest buildings in any city is usually a bank!
Now here is where it gets EVEN better - not only am I lending out 150 million - I can literally STATE I have 150 million dollars in assets!! Since the loan can be qualified as an asset as well as the original deposit - not bad for only 10K in the bank eh?!?!
So lets take the REVERSE in action:
100,000 people remove 10,000 dolars from the bank =1,000.000 = thats one billion dollars so now- the banks have one billion dollars LESS money- which means that they have lent out close to 15 billion dollars from those deposits!! BY law they HAVE to call in those loans - they can't call it in from mortgages- as yo have seen VERY RECENTLY - so they MUST call in the cash from CORPORATIONS - because only they have that kind of cash lying around!!
If close to one million people can get together (1,000,000) and remove 5,000 dollars then we are talking about removing (5 billion dollars out of the banking system) - which means we are removing 75 BILLION dollars out of the banking system !!!
OK - say we ACTUALLY pull this off - the government has two choices:
1. Tell the world they are printing up ANOTHER couple of billion dollars and increase the flight of capital to the Euro or Yen.
2. Give us all some crumbs - to make us happy.
I am betting it will be crumbs. What wouldthose crumbs be:
1. How about any of the below :
1. Repeal parts of the Patriot act that infringe on the civil liberties of US citizens
2. Hold internationally monitored (meaning Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland) etc (but not any memer of the coalition of the willing) elections in Iraq to set up an actual government in Iraq. And have a two year withdrawal period by which time the IRAQ government should be functioning propery. The oil revenues would have no reparations of war - the invading coutries expunge debt - and they agree to sell oil to the world for 30 percent below market value for 10 years.
3. Withdraw 75 percent of the troops in one year - and have UN peacekeepers from neutral countries supplant US troops - who will leave in one year.
4. Declare a two year cease fire - have the prvisional government hold elections - and keep US troops on the superbases till outcome of the elction is decided and the truly elected government has been decided.
These are just a few of any options - but we can pick only one - and I leave it to wiser men and women to come u with ONE thing we can demand.
The implications for this are HUGE. For example - say we actually did do this one time. Say that by god's grace and help from certain well to do people - 10,000,000 people actaully were able able to pul out say 20,000 dollars out of their accounts (some obviously much more then other) but say for instance that it was actually more like 15,000,000 people puling out 12,000) - WHATEVER.
The point is it is possible to get a STARTING critical mass of say: 200,000,000 billion dollars - that would be close to the entire foreign currency reserves of China (1.5 TRILLION dollars - if not more!!!!!!!!! Pukked out in AMERICA - not in some hidden central bank of CHINA - this would stop ALL economic activity in America pretty much and there would be A LOT OF SWEATING.
OK - so now - we are ACTUALLY starting the most democratic feedback system in the history of the world. Tomorrow - there is talk of accepting a 50 million dollar plea agreement for corporate fraud that the taxpayer gets soaked for -to the tune of 60 BILLION dollars!! This happens all the time in America - Enron, Tyco, Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, ALL the healthcare companies have been BUSTED on medicare fraud in to the billions of dollars. So what happens - thi coalitio - removes not only savings- but 401Ks, votes for pension funds to be withdrawn - liquidates their stock portfolios - and - the next thing you know - there are 10 trillion dollars REMOVED from the system!!
They won't go back in till corporate criminals actually PAY the PRICE for white collar crime - !!
This can be used for Free Trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, removal of social security or their pathetic attempt to raise the retirement age to 70!!
The point is - if it can be done once EFFECTIVELY - with just savings - the potential for other people (AARP/Unions, etc ) to join in IMMENSE and the people have finally shown the SYSTEM that we KNOW they can no longer rob us of our hard earned monies because we can't seem to unite.
It will be a true democracy and the withdrawal of funds from the economy will keep the theives and bankers -sorry that was redundant ;).
Anyway - please think about this - it can and WILL work if we can be UNITED for one thing. Once it occurs - people all over the world will see they have control over their own governments.
So
Iyamwutiam,
All the financial facts and figures just boggle my old hippie brain,but I think that you would do well to contact Move On or another group with a large membership that could take your idea amd run with it.
SAILA
what you are referring to is the same thing that happened in kenya in the 50's. remember the mau mau.? but these bullys are so wrapped up in their immediate agenda they can't think straight. and it would not be just them who would lose, it would be most of the world i fear; because of intervention from other countries.
I was alarmed by Mr. Ellsberg's article, but I'm almost equally alarmed by a lot of these comments, which seem to be written by quasi-illiterate mental patients. Only Dkitching sounds sensible. We have to elect a Democrat (not Hillary, I hope) for those one or two Supreme Court appointments. Not all Dems are as bad as you Unabomber-like mental patients think they are. Chris Dodd says he would restore habeas immediately. Kucinich is as progressive as anybody in office. Edwards has his heart in the right place. In the Senate, Jim Webb and Russ Feingold are among the outspoken. If you are sane, stop feeling so self-righteous, pure, and paranoid; give some money to the cause or candidate of your choice. If you do nothing else, support the Proportional Representation folks at FairVote.org.
Oy Vey! Are Vee up de Sheet Creek Vitout a Piddle, or Vat?
Dan,
I always encounter your work with a feeling of deep gratitude. Many of us know the kind of human being you are and the calibre of your heart.
That you were a Pentagon-based strategic planner for the Vietnam War who later willingly risked your freedom and your life to stop that insanity - evokes in me feelings of deep respect and appreciation. Not yet being egoless, you have modelled a stretch of the Boddhisattva Path.
Re- the comments people have offered, I certainly resonate with our fear, outrage, and confusion. "What can be be done?"
Just a few points for now...
It seems to me a strong possiblity that Bush and Company are seeking to create circumstances which will produce an Armaggedon-like scenario.
(Many "Christians" will be thrilled that the End has come and Jesus will be arriving on the next flight…for, "this destruction is God's will).
In this sense it would be Bushco's Intention to piss off as many Muslims and people of Arabian descent as possible.
However, I don't think the "Boys" wearing the black hats and hearts are suicidal. I am guessing that the elites have concluded that - as an endpoint - world dictatorship - is the only way they will be able to retain power as things continue to fall apart.
Chaos —–> "A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT."
Climate change, the phenomenon of Peak Oil, economic upheaval, resource wars - my sense is that these things are only going to get more intense.
(See Duane Elgin's book - Promise Ahead for a convincing vision of what things on our planet may look like by 2020).
My guess is that sadly, one of the most powerful opportunites for change will come out of the massive suffering that lies ahead. Global warming alone will take care of alot of that.
Finally, for now, I want to offer a resource that may at first seem "counter-intuitive" or off-point. Take a cybertrip over to the
"Disclosure Project"(disclosureproject.org.)
This project is deeply involved with heroic, modern-day whistle-blowers. The focus initially may seem different than Ellsberg's "acts of disclosure" (which played a key role in the U.S. decision to end the Vietnam War). However, you'll soon realize that there are many similarlites. as well.
By definition, a valid and more expansive new paradigm offers fresh solutions and avenues for action.
"How many of you actually believe that the current administration will allow the November 2008 elections to be held at all?"
Elections -- absolutely meaningless elections -- are vital to sustaining repression.
Elections are now nothing more than advertising campaigns, and all the candidates are only the sales force. The only thing at issue is who can make the capitalist warfare state sound nicer to its vassals.
"We have to elect a Democrat (not Hillary, I hope) for those one or two Supreme Court appointments. Not all Dems are as bad as you Unabomber-like mental patients think they are. Chris Dodd says he would restore habeas immediately. Kucinich is as progressive as anybody in office. Edwards has his heart in the right place. In the Senate, Jim Webb and Russ Feingold are among the outspoken"
Yes, and in 2013, which none of the good-hearted Democrats could promise as even a LIMIT on the occupation (Kucinich & Gravel excepted) when the death toll in Iraq is at, oh, three or four million Iraqis and the American dead are at 20,000 under the tutelage of the good-hearted Democratic president -- provided that they haven't gone to war against Iran -- we will still have the same "practical" people urging us "But we have to save the Supreme Court from the radicals, we need more time to get the troops out safely."
These are the people who sit and applaud when an agitator is tasered.
iyamwutiam September 27th, 2007 1:50 pm
I think you have hit on the best possible approach. Further more, it honors America's pinnacle of truisms: "money talks, and bull shit walks"
Iyamwutiam, I should be able to personally talk with 10 to 12 people this morning; as far as I'm concerned your idea is a done deal that may well start today. I thank you for providing a very enlightened and attractive light in a 7 year-long and bleek tunnel. It is nice to feel like i have some formidable and objective leverage for the first time in my constitutional life.
Thanks iyamwutiam... but your idea is not a new one, and is only the beginning. What we are talking here is EXTRACTION from the SYSTEM.
Besides withdrawal from the Banking System, not giving them any more of your MONEY than you have to is even more effective.
1.) Don't pay anymore Taxes than is absolutely necessary - i.e. Voluntary Simplicity
2.) Don't give your money to these Corporations - i.e. stop shopping at WalMart and stop buying so much oil
3. Do start walking a lot more
4. Do plant a garden
5. Cash in All paper assets (IRA's and Stocks), pay off your Mortgage and move to the country before the shit really hits the fan !
btraven September 28th, 2007 2:54 am
"I was alarmed by Mr. Ellsberg's article, but I'm almost equally alarmed by a lot of these comments, which seem to be written by quasi-illiterate mental patients. Only Dkitching sounds sensible. We have to elect a Democrat (not Hillary, I hope) for those one or two Supreme Court appointments. Not all Dems are as bad as you Unabomber-like mental patients think they are."
Nice attitude. That's how you convince people to vote for your party?
"Chris Dodd says he would restore habeas immediately. Kucinich is as progressive as anybody in office. Edwards has his heart in the right place."
They're going to lose to Hillary. The "netroots" can't stand her, but she is going to win anyway.
Mr. Ellsberg,
The terrifying in your assesment here of probable/likely developements in the near future is your "Houston we have a problem" tone. If you were, figuratively, running down the street screaming, "The Martians are coming!" it wouldn't hit the gut like this approach does.
I wrote "terrifying" because this development was something I saw an all too probable possibility inherent in the mind-set of the late 70s and this essay brought it all back.
On the other hand, being Americans, we know that, should we tread that path from the Lady of Liberty and Enlightenment to that of Fortress of Arrogance, we will do a bang up job.
We are the best, in whatever we do.
Imagine usa, A million patriot march. Iran is the least of our problems, Our Constitution, the very foundation of America is under siege. You choose, defend it or lose it. Period!
You think the NSA surveillance program is to spy on terrorists? HA! That's a joke.
Since there aren't any terrorists here, it would be pretty hard to spy on them don't you think? The whole premice of the program is not only unconstitutional, its plain illegal. The program is in place to commit corporate espionage, political espionage, and aid the FBI in gathering dirt on non-conformists. Wake up and smell the roses. I can't believe why this is so hard to figure out.
Hillary Clinton is clearly unfit to fulfill a presidential role due to her non-exclusion of nuclear weapons, her recent vote to allow military action against Iran, and her indecisivness on nearly every issue that been brought forward. She's a fence rider. Her inability to understand the world stage combined with her paranoia about terrorism makes her dangerously unstable.
I don't think that anyone in the bush adminstration is an actual traitor. Frothing at the mouth over money and selling your integrity out by lying for money doesn't make you a traitor. Violating someones civil rights under the Constitution makes you a criminal not a traitor. Attacking another country to steal it's natural resources makes you a war criminal but still doesn't make you a traitor. Traitors are easily recognized by their insistance that the "US Constitution" is outdated and needs to be scrapped or re-written. The ones that shout "Bush 2008! Repeal the 22nd amendment!" are also traitors. Jumping sides or aiding and abetting an enemy in an attack against your own forces makes you a traitor as well. As much as some of us hate bush, I haven't seen evidence that exists to call him out as an actual traitor. When the 9/11 attacks are revisited and a serious investigation is actually conducted, I'm POSITIVE that someone will turn out guilty of treason.
Trials need to be held and those guilty of crimes or war crimes need to be locked up. Those guilty of treason need to be executed publicly.
TheLorax: Given the already aknowledged level of surveillance, it's breadth and depth, and corporate co-operation, doesn't that mean almost every poster here in now considered to have provided moral support to enemies of the American state, and can soon expect a one way trip to a Halliburton/KBR and Blackwater 'detention facility', right after Bushco sets off the next 9/11 - Tonkin Gulf event?
Hillary is AIPAC's biotch, bottom line.
Scott Ritter and Daniel Ellsberg's articles and comments by Comudgeon '99 reflect the necessity of massive public protests, true non-violence activism, against the impending war on Iran. It is the only way for radical social change, and it always has been the only way !!!!!!!
Where are they???
Has the anti-war movement been compromised????
I am ready to go, are you???
to Stephen V. Riley:
i am with you brother.
and i am not afraid.
we need to do what we need to do.
it simple really.
Daniel Ellsbert wrote:
"Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration of her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don't think so.
Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in - and there's no move to do this at this point - unless that happens I don't see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic."
This to me make protecting constitutional freedoms Issue #1--and there are many important issues such as PEACE, health care, making friends with the world again, raising taxes while simulataneously calling for better spending accountability. NO ONE is talking about re-instating the constitutional freedoms. Kucinich does just a tiny bit at his web site but it's nothing you hear from Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
It saddens me to think that all of them are waiting to get a chance at that power. No one wants to shut it down.
I totally agree, if we do not see a movement (and I guess it'll have to be a grass roots movement) to reinstante democracy and freedoms, then we are the civilization that made it to 231 years and x months.
Galen,
That's Absurd and paranoid. I suggest you get some sleep. Right now we are not at war with Iran. We are not at war with Iraq (we're training them; mission accomplished; remember?)
We are discussing government policy which is protected under the first ammendment.
I've been involved in a lot of Union struggles in my life, and the one thing that shines true in all of them is that if you obey the law there is no problem. You are not stumping for Al Queda or Bin Lauden are you?
Then quit worrying. Fear is the only thing that despots depend on in their cowed German populations.
Now that I've said that, I want to say that I am most impressed by the quality and brave patriotism of the above posters and article contributors, who are fighting to save the constitution against current domestic enemies.
The following is purely fiction for entertainment value:
I believe Iranian war is nearly unstoppable since that is the desire of the Fortune 500 CEO government. It may be touched off with another 911 allowed to happen at home: code red: martial law.
You and I should advocate what the people want to do (the unaware 50%.) We don't know yet if they will chafe at martial law; at having their papers inspected at every intersection or if they will object to a government retinal scan everywhere they go. If they do, then the door of revolution will swing open for us. If they don't, then revolution has to wait until the economy implodes or temperatures soar into the 150 degree F range.
The key of keys, I feel, is that a revolution cannot succeed without the support of both the military and religious leaders. A case model is asia. Many attempted coups and revolutions have happened there. Most failed. The only ones that succeeded where started by the church, and backed up by the military.
So to recap:
There are several things that you people have to arrange to happen at the same time:
1. A national strike: boycott everything, park your car on the road out of gas and lock the car doors, walk away, stay home for a few weeks default on your mortgage, buy nothing, munch grass in the backyard. Freedom is going to cost you plenty!
2. Petition for redress at D.C. (many are working on it)
In the absence of restoration of the bill of rights after that period:
3. Have the Military and the Church take over and force special reelections of 90 senators and of 400 representatives for failure to uphold the constitution; specifically the first ten amendments. Hopefully the new commander in chief (Five Star General) will rapidly hold special elections for the executive branch and step down.
Appoint a new special council and start the long overdue Watergate Investigation.
The above is all fiction, and just for entertainment value only.
pacplyer
Today it is interesting to read your article after my having used the Ellsburg case during the Watergate scandal as an example for several years to emphasize the illegality of Bush's domestic spying.
I fear we have lost America as we knew it... sadly, it has been surrendered willingly by BOTH major political parties.
Our only hope of saving it, will be to vote against practically EVERY incumbent, and replace them with people who swear that they are willing to return our rights and freedoms.
If we don't get the great bulk of Americans to act soon, the issue will be moot and we will essentially become what East Germany was 30 years ago... slaves to the leaders.
I like iamwutiam's idea the best. You could have a big effect by taking your money out of the system for a while. Maybe China will do it, too--"We lent you billions, now send our money back."