EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Day 'Due Process' Died: Obama, Holder and the End of Rights
Historians of the future, if they are not imprisoned for saying so, will trace the end of America's democratic experiment to the fearful days immediately after 9/11, what Bruce Springsteen called the days of the empty sky, when frightened, small men named Bush and Cheney made the first decisions to abandon the Constitution in the name of freedom and created a new version of the security state with the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, secret prisons and sanctioned torture by the U.S. government. They proceeded carefully, making sure that lawyers in their employ sanctioned each dark act, much as kings in old Europe used the church to justify their own actions.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder. (Credit: Reuters)
Those same historians will remark from exile on the irony that such horrendous policies were not only upheld by Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and professor of Constitutional law, but added to until we came to the place we sadly occupy today: the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, publicly stating that the American Government may murder one of its own citizens when it wishes to do so, and that the requirements of due process enshrined in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, itself drawn from the Magna Carta that was the first reflowering of basic human rights since the Greeks, can be satisfied simply by a decision by that same president.
Yesterday will thus be remembered as the day we gave up. No more clever wordplay (enhanced interrogations, "patriot" act, targeted killing, kinetic operations) but a simple declaration that the U.S. government will kill its own citizens when it wishes to, via a secret process we, and our victims, are not allowed to know or contest.
Brevity in Our Freedom
Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is beautiful in its brevity and clarity. When you are saying something true, pure, clean and right, you often do not need many words: "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
There are no footnotes in the Fifth Amendment, no caveats, no secret memos, no exceptions for war, terrorism, mass rape, creation of concentration camps, acts of genocide, child torture or any evil. Those things are unnecessary, because in the beauty of what Lincoln offered to his audience as "a government of the people, by the people, for the people," the government would be made up of us, the purpose of government was to serve us, and the government would be beholden to us. Such a government would be incapable of killing its own citizens without care and debate and open trial.
With the excuse all tyrants proclaim, protecting the nation, on or about September 30, 2011 a U.S. drone fired a missile in Yemen and killed American Citizen Anwar al Awlaki, born in the United States and tragically devoted to al Qaeda. About a week later, the U.S. murdered al Awaki's 16 year old son. The U.S. had shot at the elder al Awlaki before, on May 7, 2011 under Obama's orders, and under the Bush administration. Before the U.S. government killed his son, attorneys for al Awlaki's father tried to persuade a U.S. District Court to issue an injunction preventing the government killing of al Awlaki. A judge dismissed the case, ruling the father did not have standing to sue. This was the first time in our nation's history that a father sought to sue to prevent the government from extra-legally killing his son. The judge in the case surrendered to his post-9/11 fear and wrote that it was up to the elected branches of government, not the courts, to determine whether the United States has the authority to murder its own citizens by decree.
Fear Shaped by Lies to Compel Compliance
In his speech, Attorney General Holder said things no honest man would ever believe would be said by the highest law officer in the United States.
So while the popular media remembers ... the day Rush apologized for calling someone a slut and Republican candidates ignored the wave of history to carp about birth control, historians will look back on March 5, 2012 as the day America gave up on its experiment with unalienable rights, rights that are natural, not given, rights independent of governments, what our Declaration explained to an unsure forming nation as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Holder said "that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process' and that the Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a 'judicial process.'"
Holder thus also declaimed that the victim also has no right to a defense, no right to speak on his behalf, no right to examine and refute the evidence against him and no right even to know his life will be taken under the decision of a few men in Washington. Indeed, Holder made clear that the government's decision to kill overshadowed the right to self-defense in saying "An individual's interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant. Yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al Qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks."
Holder said he rejected any attempt to label such operations assassinations, invoking the same airbrush of lawfulness that fueled the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and the Holocaust. "Assassinations are unlawful killings. The U.S. government's use of lethal force in self-defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful."
Sluts All
So while the popular media remembers yesterday as the day Rush apologized for calling someone a slut and Republican candidates ignored the wave of history to carp about birth control, historians will look back on March 5, 2012 as the day America gave up on its experiment with unalienable rights, rights that are natural, not given, rights independent of governments, what our Declaration explained to an unsure forming nation as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
And that is the saddest part of a very sad day: the majority of Americans -- the consent of the governed -- seemingly do not care what Holder said, and are even now bleating on internet forums and likely in comments below to this article about the need to kill more terrorists, adding terrified, empty justifications to Holder's clever Newspeak. We did not have our freedom taken from us, we gave it away.
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...
150 Comments so far
Show AllThis assault on the Constitution began long before 9/11. We haven't had a constitutionally declared war since 1941. Yet we have been in more wars than you can count. The Executive branch has taken the role of declaring war away from the Congress. And it continues to steal power from Congress. And Congress does nothing to restore its power. So what Obama and Holder are doing is just continuing to empower the Executive branch until we will have a completely totalitarian government. We will be a giant corporation, not a country.
Hoa binh
- We haven't had a constitutionally declared war since 1941. -
I must disagree with this, my friend.
What we have had are a number of badly-declared wars. The Constitution says nothing about the language of declaring war. The Constitution says nothing about Congress writing sane and truthful laws. Congress failed us, again and again, when they wrote sloppy, vaguely worded legislation that is obviously meant to allow the war-mongers to do what they want, while providing political cover for the feckless and lizard-brained who start these badly-declared wars.
Tonkin Gulf resolution, 1964 - a vaguely-written declaration that started a badly-declared war with an insane and unattainable victory goal - preventing Communist aggression.
Public Law 107-243 (AUMF against Iraq) - the victory goals were already attained before the invasion of Iraq - this war was unnecessary, by America's own words.
Public Law 107-40 (AUMF) - the ultimate stealth war law. Even this article ignores it. This law declared war against enemies to be named later.
Bush named al-Qaeda and the Taliban, for starters.
The victory condition is as insane as in the Tonkin Gulf resolution - the preventing of future terrorism by military means. This law is still in effect.
Congress gave away their war-making power to the Executive. The President only has to name someone as the enemy now, and add them to the list. Congress didn't even have the decency to put a time limit on this. Each President names new enemies. Obama named "al-Qaeda affiliates", and that can mean whomever he wants it to mean. Obama names new enemies, and he does it secretly. He does not even have to name them publicly (Congress failed us again!)
Public Law 107-40. The ultimate stealth war law - America is trapped in an insane and DAFT war to forever prevent future terrorism, by law.
Just as Hitler followed up the Reichstag Fire with the Reichstag Fire Decree and later with the Ennabling Act, BushCo. followed up 9/11 with Public Law 107-40 and then the Patriot Act.
After all, where do you think Bush got his ideas from?
Look what Wikipedia has to say about the NDAA for Fiscal 2012 -
"Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority."
Public Law 107-40 still has us trapped in insanity. Ignoring this law has failed us and I suggest again and again that we stop ignoring it.
Note also that Congressional Democrats enabled Cheney, his puppet Dubya and the other "small men" to escalate the US police state after 9-11.
Just as Bill Clinton's Team decriminalized financial fraud, Dubya's and Obama's Teams decriminalized tyranny.
Read this article by Peter Dale Scott and you will get it:
http://real-agenda.com/2011/11/24/the-doomsday-project-continuity-of-government-plans-and-the-events-that-enabled-it/
These are interesting examples, but they fail the Constitutional requirement of declared war. That they were nonetheless carried out doesn't change the facts or the problem. The assertion stands: we haven't had a properly-declared war since 1941.
Let's move on to charging Obama and Holder with sedition.
Who is to do so and how are they to go about it?
good discussion folks - we all agree that the handling of and execution of wars in amerika has been a nasty bottom feeder process
people seem to like these lists from michael snyder about amerika
#1 Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation.
#2 There are 5.6 million less jobs than there were when the last recession began back in late 2007.
#3 The U.S. government says that the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by 17.9 million between 2000 and 2011. During the entire decade of the 1980s, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by only 1.7 million.
#4 In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent.
#5 In 2007, 73.2 percent of all young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 that were not enrolled in school had jobs. Today, that number has declined to 65 percent.
#6 Back in the year 2000, more than 50 percent of all Americans teens had a job. This past summer, only 29.6% of all American teens had a job.
#7 When Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.
#8 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000.
#9 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.
#10 According to the Obama administration, about 20 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs back in the year 2000. Today, about 5 percent of all jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.
#11 Sadly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001.
#12 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.
#13 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 28 times larger than it was back in 1990.
#14 About twice as many new homes were sold in the United States in 1965 as are being sold today.
there's more for those interested
http://www.blacklistednews.com/35_Shocking_Statistics_That_Prove_That_Things_Have_Gotten_Worse_In_America/18331/0/38/38/Y/M.html
all of this representing yet another form of warfare...
By definition Amerika is a totalitarian military dictatorship. The nation exists in a declared state of martial law. Local police forces look more like special-forces combat troops than the policeman who walked a beat in less sinister days. The dictator can order you jailed, tortured and murdered at his whim. Welcome to the New World Order.
Columbia Law School needs to revoke his Doctor of Laws degree.
He needs to be impeached as Attorney General.
He should be shunned by his lawyer peers.
He needs to be heckled loudly and rudely whenever he shows his face in public.
And they just conveniently passed HR 347 to stop hecklers and mic checkers.
For the morbid, it is fascinating to consider that corporations -- which have no rights in the Constitution -- now have more rights than living citizens.
Certainly, Obama and Holder would never contemplate-- or dare-- extinguishing a rogue corporation based on simple Executive branch decree.
Corporations are entitled to full Constitutional protections and unlimited access to the courts where their panoply of agents can defend them.
This was never part of the original conception of the U.S. Constitution. (Of course neither was assassinations of U.S. citizens.)
"Post-Revolution America developed largely along the ideals of Jefferson’s yeoman farmer, with American industrialism lagging behind its European counterparts. Corporations remained small institutions, chartered at the state level for specific purposes, such as banking or seafaring. Corporations could only exist for a limited time, could not make any political contributions, and could not own stock in other companies. Their owners were responsible for criminal acts committed by the corporation and the doctrine of limited liability (shielding investors from responsibility for harm and loss caused by the corporation) did not yet exist. Often corporate charters went to the wealthy or well-connected. But these small corporations did move America into the industrial era, encouraging entrepeneurism on a grander scale. Governments kept a close watch on how these corporations were being run,
regularly revoking charters if corporations were not serving the public interest. For example, in 1832, President Andrew Jackson refused to extend the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and the State of Pennsylvania revoked 10 banks’ charters. "
An interesting discussion of the growth of corporate hegemony by Lee Drutman (of Citizen Works) here on PDF:
citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
Agreed! Every law school in the country needs to very openly and vociferously protest this outrage and the hacks like Holder who helped make it happen. Otherwise these law schools should close their doors and ackowledge that they no longer serve any purpose in this country now that due process is dead.
Oh, but they do still serve a purpose. They put the little people in jail that break the laws of the pharmaceutical industry by using natural drugs, like pot.
Or the people that break the law by using the outlawed 1st Amendment Right, or fight against the tyrannical TSA groping and saying the did not give up their 4th Amendment Right.
Or anyone else that breaks the laws against the one percent.
Or the criminals in Kongress and the WH.
Or Bradley Manning type people that blow the whistle on corruption. Now they use the Espionage act against them.
Old Guy: You and Tom Joad hit on the key issues here. In Chile, even poets were picked up and disappeared, if not slaughtered. Any time the call goes out for open season on alleged enemies, ANYTHING goes, and it goes bloody badly.
This quote hit me hardest because it's really the net result of this type of inversion of law:
"Holder said he rejected any attempt to label such operations assassinations, invoking the same airbrush of lawfulness that fueled the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and the Holocaust."
The only thing standing between the citizen's right to existence and a martial state is what's left of the rule of law, and that appears to be in the shredder now.
End of "Judgement At Nurenberg"
Ernst Janning: Those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it.
Judge Hayward (Spencer Tracy): It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death.
The movie that launched the career of the 20th century's greatest actor.
John Yoo revisited. But then, this shouldn't surprise anyone who bothered to read about Holder's previous employer.
This was the end of me voting for either of the two parties of the .1%. I thought I'd hold my nose and vote Democrat for social issues like woman's reproductive rights. But after this bullsh!t I can no longer vote for a party that in reality has so little regard for human life, the rule of law, and the constitution itself.
The Democrat party along with the Rethugs can go screw themselves.
I too see no reason to vote either; I've seen enough already and it makes me rather ill, especially since Obama took office and has given us - change we can only make believe in - same old BS from a well spoken liar. "The Democratic party along with the Rethugs can go screw themselves." No, they are screwing all of us and we don't even seem to notice or care enough to know. Try informing an Obama-bot about anything they don't know and you may as well be talking to a rock - they do not want to hear or know more. As the last line of Peter's piece states: "We did not have our freedom taken from us, we gave it away."
I share your view NC-Tom. And what I don't get is the contempt and disregard directed at people like myself, or you NC-Tom, from fellow Democrats who insist on the same old tired rebuttal: "what do you think will happen if a Republican gets into office?" My answer is we have already have a Republican in office. Those of us tired of the bullshit get accused of aiding and abetting the right by refusing to partake in re-electing the tyrant-in-office this November.
The system is broken. It's bad enough that corporations can contribute to campaigns without limitation; but what do we do about the two party system that used to provide distinct differences in governing approach yet are now barely discernable from each other? I'm not voting Democrat or Republican in November. So I guess that leaves Rocky Anderson or another third party.
And to the author of this piece please count me as one who did not let this go unattended or without objection. I'm horrified that our president can murder any citizen at will and can get away with it simply by deeming someone a "terrorist".
Glenn Greenwald also has a piece in Salon on this particular issue that is well worth reading. Amy Goodman's show offers another perspective by interviewing Hina Shamsy, the ACLU's National Security Project, who is representing Awlaki's family; she discusses the inexcusable and unlawful secrecy behind this administration's free reign on targeted assassinations.
The hypocrisy and double standard present in today's Democratic party is sickening. There was a time I was proud to be a Democrat. No more.
Look up third party candidate Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. He is a real progressive who wants to take our country back. voterocky.org.
Thank goodness - one less Lesser-Evilist! Good for you NC-Tom. Now, just 50 million more to go......
Yup I have officially switched camps. When the lesser of two evils is still too evil you just have to give up. Hopefully a viable third party will emerge. OK, I know that was a delusional thought on my part.
Just remember that lesser-evil is still evil. Voting for evil is assisting evil. Never a good thing.
The effrontery of this act with respect to the Constitution of the US marks the most profound attack against that institutional agreement ever made by any executive of the US. The waging of wars with anything less than the full, explicit Congerssional approval, the spying on citizens, the enactment of the US War Powers Act all pale in comparison to this. It means open season for all executives of the institution on everything that is encoded in that agreement between the people of the nation.
Where are the Robert Birds needed to defend the Constitution. The effete congress squabbles over condoms while the nation crumbles.
"The effete congress squabbles over condoms while the nation crumbles."
Thank you, richsmith2, for so precisely AND concisely pointing out essentially what I just spent paragraphs trying to emphasize when responding in another thread to the brute-force arrests of pro-choice activists who were peacefully protesting the latest bit of insane smoke-and-mirrors abortion legislation sure to enhance the lives and safety of all Virginians...compliments of their governing sociopath......just one of many self-serving, self-righteous representatives of 'the' people currently stampeding the women of their states toward that cliff.
And I shudder a little knowing that even more sinister intentions are manifesting while everyone's attention is on the condom squabble (or whatever issue is being strategically placed in the limelight) and how it will help sway voters in the upcoming fall-charade that will supposedly determine the next puppet-in-chief.of all that is crumbling.
While this article has much good information, it also has a major flaw.
Bush and Cheney alone did not create the massively unconstitutional Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act is one of the most prominent examples of the gutting of the (now former) constitution by all of the corporate owned parties. It is a bill of sale.
Bush and Cheney an Co. acted as the agents, but now we have Obama and Biden and Co. as the agents. When people vote for anyone within the democrat or republican agencies, they are voting for more of the same.
They started writing the Patriot act long before 9/11. Indeed the roots of the Patriot act go back to the 1950s where many of the same proposals made and rejected. They simply gathered up all these proporsals and added to them slowly introducing lesser versions of the acts through the 1970s and 1980's.
They started putting it all together into one overreaching act starting in 1996 with the "anti-terrorism" passed in that year.
It was all ready to go BEFORE 9/11 and just waiting for the opportune time to be implemented.
It was the work of BOTH Political parties.
I don't think it is merely a matter of voting for one of the two major parties that leads to more of the same. It runs deeper than that. If we promote the idea that voting determines who is in power we are asking for more of the same.
To think that who is in power and what they are doing was caused by how we voted suggests that this would change if we voted differently. Sure, in theory, that might be true, "if only..."
If only people voted differently, if only there were a real choice, if only the MSM didn't operate against us, if only different people were running or were elected, if only elections were not stolen and voter rights suppressed, if only politicians didn't sell out once in office, if only the right legislation were passed...
There is virtually an unlimited number of items on the "if only" list. They all basically say the same thing: "if only things were different, why, then they would be different."
Those in power control all of those "if only" ideas, and will do whatever it takes to make sure they don't come to pass.
When CD posted the article about this on Monday, I went over to Huffington Post and Democratic Underground to see if there was any debate on this issue. It wasn't even mentioned, even though they found room to discuss celebrity gossip and make pointless snarky comments about Limbaugh and the GOP. Obama has effectively silenced the American liberal establishment on nearly every important issue, just as many on the left predicted he would.
I was astounded by Holder's assertion that "due process" does not necessarily mean "judicial process," but that in fact, due process simply means that some kind of process is followed within the Executive Branch. He explained that there is indeed a process by which the President decides to assassinate -- oops, I'm not allowed to use that "loaded" word -- I mean, kill, err target for elimination (?) US citizens. He described that "due process" as consisting of someone being put on a capture-or-kill list, and then the President ordering the "targeted killing" based on intelligence presented to him (which of course is secret), after he determines that capturing the individual is not feasible.
THAT is what qualifies as "due process" in the United States of America these days. I wonder, where are the "strict constitutionalists" who hold up the principle of "original intent" as a bulwark against "judicial activism"? Does anyone really think that the "process" described by Holder is what the Founders intended by the "due process of law" clause of the Fifth Amendment? I mean, I'm sure the English monarchs had some kind of "process" they followed before they ordered their subjects to be disemboweled or drawn and quartered, but that is certainly not what is meant by "due process of law."
The lack of outrage over this tyrannical usurpation of power by the Executive Branch is stunning, and the liberals who continue to support Obama make me just as sick as the conservatives who supported George W. Bush through his eight years of misrule.
I find it hard to swallow, but I'm really coming to believe that all of these people they put up there for us to vote for are nothing but hand-picked puppets of some kind of secret cabal -- the Illuminati, New World Order, whatever you want to call it. The sad fact is, whoever you vote for, you get fascism and tyranny.
Yes, you are constitutionally guaranteed the right to see evidence against you and defend yourself in a court of law before a jury of your peers. Now Holder arbitrarily redefines due process so that you likely will never even know you have been accused of anything, let alone have an opportunity to defend yourself, or even declare your innocence.
And wouldn't it seem odd that the Republicans, so eager to brand Obama some flavor of tyrant (not being too particular, as their accusations are all over the ideological spectrum), have not siezed upon this, except for the fact that most of them, true to their natures, actually support anything that impinges upon the rights of actual, living citizens, so long as they are not citizens of the corporation type.
It all gives the lie to their "them bad, us good" theater of the absurd, arguing tirelessly over the particulars of what programs and tax brackets we will no longer be participating in once we are marked for extrajudicial extermination.
The election season is a revealing time in which we are inundated with manufactured controversies (over contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that are contrived to convince us that there really are big, big differences between the Demoplicans and the Republicrats. It's like the puppet masters are peeling our eyelids open and forcing us to watch this charade, all the while shouting, "Look, look! See all the differences between the two parties?! Choose or lose!"
Meanwhile, they downplay any real alternatives, such as the serious issues raised by the Occupy movement, or even Ron Paul. But all this charade really reveals is how much they agree on. What's left unspoken is what we really need to pay attention to. War with Iran? Sure, why not. Indefinite military detention of US citizens? Yeah, let's do that. Secret, due process free assassinations? Naturally. The silence on these issues is deafening.
But don't forget about the war on women, they remind us. This tactic may work again on enough people to continue offering some legitimacy to their sham elections, but more and more people are waking up to this shell game. I, for one, will never play their game again -- never voting for either of these two fascist parties no matter who they run or what kind of scare tactics they use.
Holder defended Chicita banana in Columbia after they assassinated union leaders. We need to unincorporate this government, only millions marching and general strike will overcome this dictatorship. Peter Van Buren good article, but please there are few on CD who are ignorant enough to support Dictator Oilybomber.
Holder was also up to his eyeballs in the MERS real estate recording fraud as a private attorney -
The guy's a major scumbag.
I read somewhere
That people have a right
To speak and assemble and
Petition
I think I saw it written
In the back of a text
Which has been
discontinued.
Written in 1965
Having two right wing parties in a limited two party system does not make a progressive state even a remote possibility. Obama and the democratic party are totally corrupt and dedicated to building a police state. .
Along these same lines, check out HR347, now on Obama's desk for signature after passing Congress with only three dissenting votes and little notice, even from lefty blogs. Want to mic check the President? That'll get you a year in prison. Want to be part of planning a demonstration against the President when he comes to town? That'll get you a year in prison, as well, for conspiracy, thank you very much. Want to even try to mic check the President? One year in the slammer, as even attempting to violate the bill is also punishable. And then, of course, the FBI will need to investigate you if you may have an inclination to do these things, in order to prevent you from breaking the law.
Yes, nada in the news about HR347. Scary as hell how fast and furious the legislation is coming that, one by one, are blatantly destroying each Article and Amendment of the Constitution. The right to protest your government for a redress of grievances: soon to be officially outlawed per HR347. The right to a trial by your peers, to be innocent until proven guilty, to be charged with a crime and be given the opportunity to review and refute the evidence against you and face your accusers - gone already per the DOAA.
It appears to me that the .1% is now - quite literally - moving swiftly and in broad daylight to destroy every piece of the Constitution, as opposed to quietly in the shadows as previously, since they have discovered that the Amereichan public really doesn't care, by and large. I think the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and the DOAA were "trial balloons" - they wanted to see how the public would react. When they saw that the vast majority of Amereicha couldn't give a shit, they said "green light. We can do what we want with minimal protest. Start writing." Combined with the moronic Lesser-Evilism that infects the electorate, the sheep are going to the slaughterhouse willingly, with huge smiles on their apathetic faces.
Demonstorm: I think the War on Drugs set the litmus test... suddenly property was seized and the right to privacy violated, but just as most people don't see themselves as drug addicts, they let this one go. In a similar way, most people don't see themselves as terrorists (or particularly politically radical), so they might let this one get a pass, too, were they to even know about it!
Yes indeed, Sioux. "First they came for the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade-unionist, so I remained silent..." And so forth.
Creeping fascism is over. Now comes the in-your-face-blatant fascism and authoritarianism, no longer even bothering to cover the iron fist with velvet. There isn't much time left. We have a very small window to take back our country, or we lose it forever. I for one know that there will be no revolution - the apathy in this country, as you have just pointed out, Sioux, is just too deeply imbedded in the mindset of the sheeple. That leaves getting off this sinking ship while we still can. If anyone knows of a good suggestion, I'd appreciate some input. I've heard New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden - although I have reservations about the latter...Anyone?
I'm living in a foreign country that is closely allied with the US, and I worry that it will follow in the same footsteps as America's march to fascism. I honestly think the best bet would be a truly independent country, one that doesn't belong to NATO, in particular. Once Predator Drones become ubiquitous in the skies of the USA and after the police are fully militarized, US arms manufacturers will start looking for new markets and start pushing their weapons on others, and the first market they will look to are NATO countries.
I would definitely avoid Sweden. While it has a reputation of being a lovely socialist utopia with beautiful blondes, cradle-to-grave health care and free education, it is very much in the pocket of the US imperialists. This is why they set up Julian Assange with their sex sting operation there and why Assange is fighting tooth and nail to be extradited from the UK. Once he is in the hands of the Swedish authorities, he will be promptly extradited to the United States and be put on trial for espionage or whatever secret charges the grand jury has laid out against him.
I think your best bet to avoid the reach of US fascism would be a country like Venezuela or Bolivia.
thanks for the suggestions, DC - good food for thought...
No problem, happy to offer my perspective. Slightly embarrassed to say, I thought after Obama took over, I would be making my way back home at some point, to you know, the land of the free... Every day since then, however, has reconfirmed my decision to leave that country.
The USA is finished. Whether it was ever a democracy or not is an interesting academic discussion, but for all intents and purposes, it has moved from what might be called quasi-democracy to absolute fascist tyranny. You are right to consider your options for getting out.
Anyone paying attention can see that the past decade has brought once-unthinkable changes, and that these developments are only going to get worse -- fast. NDAA, extrajudicial assassination, FEMA camps, 30,000 drones in the skies, sham elections, police repression, etc. etc. etc.
Exactly. This is merely the beginning. It will not be long before what most of us post here on CD will be considered tantamount to "treason," or "anti-government," or whatever-the-hell-the-government-decides-is-illegal. Think it can't happen, people? I bet 10 years ago nobody would have thought that a Democratic President - a black one, no less - would be declaring he has the right to murder anyone, anywhere, anytime, on his say-so alone. I bet 10 years ago nobody would have thought that a Democratic President - a black one, no less - would be declaring that he has the right to hold an Amereichan citizen indefinitely in a military brig for the rest of their lives with no right to trial, on secret evidence. And here we are.
Get out while you can. Think it's bad now? Give it 10 more years. You'll wish you had left when you could. DC, wherever you are, you're smart to stay.
I think you've misinterpreted the phrase, "When the going gets tough the tough get going."
Not at all. It is not cowardice to abandon a sinking ship. Quite the opposite.
There are no ships big enough to ride out the tsunami of wealth if their crews abandon them.
I actually think that what we are saying here is already tantamount to (what they consider) treason. It's not good. The DHS is monitoring all these sites, probably storing every word we say in some database with algorithms to determine who may or may not be a "threat" to the "security" of the United States. Eh, whatever. We already know (thanks to Anonymous and Wikileaks) some of their red-flag words such as NATIONAL SECURITY RIOT, which I think would make a great name for a band.
Thought crime...