Skip to main content

Last week my half-baked diary mocking media was (mis-)reported by CBS, despite being not newsworthy, and ironic, given my warning of censorship. I believe this diary is extremely newsworthy, provides critical analysis & evidence missed by Congress, media & US judges that is crucial to saving the future fabric of our constitutional democracy, which hinges on the fate of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 that is being aggressively defended in US federal courts by Pentagon & Obama lawyers, but universally misunderstood by seemingly everyone else.  


I believe Carl Mayer, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs suing to block NDAA 1021b understated the import of this case when he recently stated:  


This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case.


We'll see if this is unfalsifiable, but yet falls victim to the virtual, curious media blackout on the ongoing battle over the National Defense Authorization Act. I write this bare bones version because I have the flu, but think I got the main points in here. If I'm wrong, please prove it. To those who've followed this closely, this may explain some of the puzzling rhetoric, court proceedings & rampant chicanery about what the NDAA actually does.  


If you cannot debunk my analysis below, please pass it on to media, legal experts, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky & other plaintiffs suing to block the NDAA, which is much more horrifying than anyone has, so far, grasped. No one has debunked my analysis yet.  
Much of the controversy and confusion surrounding Congress' 12/31/11passage of the NDAA bill has focused on sub-section 1021b, empowering the military to "indefinitely detain" people without charges or trial. A bi-partisan group of Senators failed to strip this "indefinite detention" power from the NDAA. A high-profile group of journalists (Pulitzer-Prize winner, Chris Hedges), academics (Noam Chomsky), whistleblowers (Daniel Elsberg) & activists are suing the US (Pres. Obama, Sec. of Defense Panetta, etc.) in a case, which some have characterized as the biggest constitutional showdown between the president and judiciary, the 1st Amendment, since the 1970's Pentagon Papers case. On Sept. 12, 2012, US Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that NDAA 1021b was unconstitutional vague, and violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights protected by the 1st Amendment (free speech, press, association), and 5th Amendment (e.g. due process, fair trial, etc.). Unexpectedly, Pentagon lawyers filed an "emergency freeze" on Judge Forrest's injunction, which Obama officials said would cause "irreparable harm" to US national security. These reactions caused plaintiffs to speculate that the US had already used the NDAA to "indefinitely detain" Americans without trial in military prisons.        

I will prove the truth about the NDAA would "shock the conscience" of most Americans, and Congress, the media, the plaintiffs & deciding US judges, have either been deceived into- or complicit in- concealing the fact that the NDAA essentially codifies the quasi-dictatorial "war on terror" powers, secretly claimed by Bush & Obama administrations to erect what NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, called an Orwellian "turn-key totalitarian" state, and retroactively "legalizes" Bush/Obama secret use of the massive military & intelligence apparatus domestically, unrestrained by the Bill of Rights, Congressional or Judicial checks on virtually unlimited Executive power (i.e. tyrannical power Founding Fathers never dreamed possible). 






Unless my analysis can be debunked, the NDAA is not merely about indefinitely detaining citizens without trial (i.e. torture), but rather, deceptively codifying a new, secret authoritarian " Constitutional order" invented by Bush & Pentagon lawyers on 10/23/2001 past Congress, the judiciary, media & the public, which few would support. Indeed, the critical "secret legal memo" empowers the US President (& possibly military commanders) to suspend the 1st Amendment right to free speech & free press, indefinitely detain, murder, search/seize/destroy property (& communications) of even innocent US citizens, order military/CIA non-investigatory operations targeting citizens, suspension of the Bill of Rights (not excluding Congress members & US judges), until the end of hostilities (i.e. never). 

To prove that I'm not exaggerating, I will cite below some shocking passages of this declassified "secret legal memo" below, and challenge the reader to name a single totalitarian (Nazi or communist) practice, which has not been secretly "legal"  since Oct. '01. To be sure, I'm not talking about the non-secret interpretations of the Patriot Act, like the US Supreme Court decision, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which perversely allows US authorities to charge people/entities directly advocating nonviolence to be imprisoned for providing material support to terrorists (See, "How Easy Is It for Peaceful People to Violate the Patriot Act?")

PROOF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SECRETLY CLAIMED QUASI-DICTATORIAL POWERS 

The irrefutable fact that the Bush administration had been secretly claiming these quasi-dictatorial "war on terror" powers mentioned above from 10/23/2001 until the last days of  their reign was revealed in the afternoon of 3/2/2009, when Obama's DOJ declassified this secret legal memo, "Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States. 



The Bush administration & Pentagon lawyers (e.g. John Yoo) argued that even if critics did not accept their interpretation of the US constitution "vesting" the US president with these inherent "emergency" powers, Congress granted the US president these virtually (or actually) unlimited powers by passing the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Militry Force (AUMF) bill. 



See my blog, "The Day Defending the US Constitution Became A Terrorist Crime"(also see, "NDAA Frankenstein"), for some horrifying quotes illustrating the Bush (& then Obama) legal reasoning of what the "war on terror" justifies, like: 
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully"

"[T]he protections of the Bill of Rights are tempered by the circumstances of war."

 "Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations"


"[L]egal and constitutional rules regulating law enforcement activity are not applicable"

"[E]fforts to fight terrorism may require not only the usual wartime regulations of domestic affairs, but also military actions that have normally occurred abroad."

"Whatever would embarrass or impede the advance of the enemy, as the breaking up of roads, or the burning of bridges, or would cripple and defeat him, as destroying his means of subsistence"

 "[T]hat aiders and abettors of the public enemy were themselves enemies, and hence that their property might lawfully be confiscated."

"[C]ertain basic constitutional rights do not apply to the enemy, and that even United States citizenship may not negate the possibility that one
may have the legal status of an enemy."

"Although these    decisions arise under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Fourth, we think that they illuminate the Government's ability to "search" and "seize" even innocent United States persons and their property for reasons of overriding military necessity." [NOTE: USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS ALSO A 4TH AMENDMENT SEIZURE, INDICATING EVEN INNOCENT US CITIZENS CAN BE MURDERED ON US SOIL IF PRES./MILITARY DEEMS IT NECESSARY]


The following quote reveals several shocking powers also justified elsewhere in the 2001 USDOJ OLC legal memo to: 1) military commanders (i.e. not just US president) operating inside the US "battlefield," 2) may order military indefinite detention of citizens without charges/trial, for 3) giving aid/information to the enemy (note: there's no legal requirement to prove citizen intended to aid or provide information to "enemy" indeed his motive may be the aid/inform the US/public, 4) See examples, of Wikileaks, US whistleblowers, journalists, academics, bloggers, or anyone in Internet age.  

"[i]f a commanding officer finds within his lines a person, whether citizen or alien, giving aid or information to the enemy, he can arrest and detain him so long as may be necessary for the security or success of his army. He can do this under the same necessity which will justify him, when an emergency requires it, in seizing or destroying the private property' of a citizen." Id. at 7. In terrorist wars...there are of course no battle lines...We think...the same principle applies, and that a military commander operating in such a theater has the same emergency powers of arrest and detention."
You get the picture. In a 3/3/2009 Harpers' article, constitutional scholar, Scott Horton, said about the declassified secret legal memo:  
"We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship."


But it seems the Obama & Pentagon lawyers opted to secretly retain these dictatorial powers, which go way beyond "merely" spying. The Pentagon & Bush lawyers could've simply said the US president has dictatorial powers until the "war on terror" is over, but they waste many pages twisting logic & precedent to make it all look "legal." I'm pretty sure I'm the only expert to warn of these specific power uses before this memo was declassified back when I was a colleague of Pres. Bush's UC-Berkeley torture & anti-terror architects, but let's get back to my argument today.

PROOF THE PENTAGON & OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THE NDAA CODIFIES PRES. BUSH'S SECRET LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF QUASI-DICATORIAL POWERS (INCLUDING MILITARY "INDEFINITE DETENTION" OF EVEN INNOCENT CITIZENS)

NDAA Section 1021 is framed as a "reaffirmation" of AUMF

* Obama officials & lawyers have said the NDAA merely "codifies" pre-existing law and does nothing new. 

* Pentagon/Obama lawyers have stated their interpretation of the AUMF is the same as the Bush administration's. For example, in its request for an "emergency freeze" (i.e. stay request), Obama lawyers criticize Judge Forrest's ruling, stating

"As we explained, the district court's [Judge Forrest] injunctive order causes harm in   several ways. First, the court rejects the Executive Branch's   long-standing interpretation of the AUMF – with respect to the concepts   of "substantial support" and "associated forces" – that has been   endorsed by two Presidents..." 

* The critical NDAA Sections 1021d & 1021e have been either ignored or misrepresented to convince Congress members, media & citizens that the NDAA "indefinite detention" provision does not apply to US citizens &/or the NDAA doesn't change any existing laws or authority, which is technically true, but the most horrifying aspects of the law when considering that "existing" law/authority is identical to the quasi-dictatorial powers invented in Pres. Bush's 10/23/01 secret legal memo.
* Sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended   to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the   Authorization for Use of Military Force". 

* Sub-section(e), states "Nothing in this section shall be construed to   affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United   States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any   other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

* Although I've been arguing the Pentagon/Obama administration has been claiming & using the same radical, quasi-dictatorial powers as Bush since early 2009, here's a quote from plaintiff (Hedges) quoting an Obama lawyer litigating the NDAA case, which was overlooked by most of the media, but supports my argument, in my 9/12/2012 Daily Kos diary, "Did Judge's Overturning NDAA Provision Actually Block Obama's "Indefinite Detention" Powers

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Torrance argued in court that the   government already has the authority to strip citizens of their   constitutional rights."

PROOF CONGRESS DID NOT BELIEVE THE NDAA CODIFIED SECRET LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF QUASI-DICTATORIAL POWERS   

Because I think there's a plethora of evidence suggesting that even Congressional critics of the NDAA were pretty clueless about what they were passing (or knowingly deceiving the public on behalf of Pentagon &/or Obama), and because I don't want to distract readers from my BIG argument here, I'll refer you to two of my previous articles below proving this point: 


PROOF US JUDGE FORREST CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NDAA WAS EX POST FACTO "FIX" TO RATIFY PAST ACTIONS/INTERPRETATIONS OF AUMF THAT CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED

In US Judge Katherine Forrest's trenchant 9/12/12 rejection of the Obama administration's arguments, she said the following: 

<!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?-->    
"Section 1021 appears to be a legislative attempt at an ex post facto "fix": to provide the President (in 2012) with broader detention authority than was provided in the AUMF in 2001 and to try to ratify past detentions which may have occurred under an overly-broad interpretation of the AUMF. That attempt at a "fix" is obscured by language in the new statute (e.g., "reaffirmation") that makes it appear as if this broader detention authority had always been part of the original grant. It had not."

& Judge Forrest says (pp. 42-43): 

"In the face of cases ruling that the law of war does not provide for the expansive detention authority the Government envisions, the inclusion of the "law of war" in § 1021 appears to have been intended as a legislative gap-filler, a 'fix." 

My hunch as to why the Pentagon/Obama lawyers "freaked out" after Judge Forrest's 9/12/12 ruling is that she (unwittingly, I'm guessing) followed my 8/14/12 advice

"It is clear   that if she intends to permanently outlaw the legal authority to   indefinitely detain US citizens, she [Judge Forrest] must go farther than merely banning   the specific NDAA 1021 provision. In reality, she must write an opinion   that unambiguously clarifies that such practices are unconstitutional   and cannot be deemed "legal" by any secret interpretations of any   legislation or newly invented inherent powers based in the US   constitution."

EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THE US APPEALS COURT IS BEING DECEIVED (OR DISINGENUOUS) BY MISREPRESENTATION OF NDAA

10/2/12 Politico article reported, "A three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd   Circuit issued the order Tuesday afternoon, indicating they saw flaws   with the scope and rationale for U.S. District Court Judge Katherine   Forrest's original order blocking the disputed provision of the National   Defense Authorization Act of 2011.



'We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the   government's motion for a stay,' Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin,   Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney wrote in a three-page order that   also expedited the appeal.



The judges continue:

 
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the   government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated   activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no   danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S.   military.'

Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights   of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United   States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed   to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of   United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or   any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').


Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go   beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under   the Authorization for Use of Military Force...

  
WHY MY ANALYSIS WILL BOLSTER PLAINTIFFS' CASE VS. NDAA IN US APPEALS &/OR SUPREME COURT & JUSTIFIES "LEGAL STANDING" FOR MANY TO CHALLENGE SECRET INTERPRETATIONS OF AUMF

* My analysis demonstrates that the plaintiffs have much more to fear than capture or "indefinite detention," which invalidates the Obama lawyers' (belated & carefully parsed) assurances that they have not been and won't be "indefinitely detained," and therefore have no legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the NDAA (or by implication of the AUMF). 

* My analysis illuminates the deceptive logic of NDAA sub-section 1021e, cited by the three US Appelate judges (& Obama lawyers & Congress members) above, and reveals that according to the secret interpretations of the NDAA/AUMF, US citizens can be stripped of all their rights at the whim of any US president and targeted with covert warfare (or indefinitely detained or murdered) as an "enemy of the state" for exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech, free press, &/or free assembly. 

* My analysis provides logic & evidence that can be used by other US citizens (EXCEPT THOSE ALREADY STRIPPED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS- E.G. TO LAWYER-, WHETHER IN SECRET DETENTION OR SIMPLY ON TERRORIST WATCHLIST, OR OTHER BLACKLISTS OR SO-CALLED WATCHLISTS) to get legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the NDAA & AUMF. Perversely, I suspect the only ones who can legally challenge the NDAA & AUMF's constitutionality are those who have not been abused, tortured, discredited, blacklisted, detained- in any facility- by them, as has happened in our previous darkest chapters.  

* According to the UN, "indefinite detention" without charges or trial, is itself torture. Thus, the NDAA attempts to codify torture of US citizens without even a trial. 

* If codified (or secretly if not judicially banned), US military authorities could coerce friends, family, doctors, 3rd parties to abuse, persecute, blacklist, excommunicate, discredit, humiliate, fire targeted US citizens by telling the 3rd parties that their noncompliance with require the "indefinite detention" of the targeted citizen/critic. This is one way governments socially-engineer blacklisting, discrediting, excommunication of dissidents, including Americans (e.g. "if you don't abort communication with & financial/emotional support of your sister/daughter, we'll be forced to secretly indefinitely detain her without trial/charges forever & she'll never see the light of day, and it'll all be classified so nobody can whisper a word about this anyway). Therefore, these (or other) plaintiffs can challenge the constitutionality of "indefinite detention" on these grounds as well.  

CONCLUSION

* The NDAA 2012 is an attempt to codify the quasi-dictatorial powers first dreamed up by Pres. Bush's lawyers on 10/23/2001 & claimed ever since, behind the backs of Congress, the US Judicial Branch, the media & US citizens, ushering in a qualitatively new, terrifying, secret authoritarian "Constitutional order," that justifies targeting US citizens, Congress, even US judges with military forms of warfare & any force deemed necessary to the successfully wage the never-ending "war on terror." 

* Senators Wyden & Udall have previously protested the Obama administration's use of secret laws, which they characterized as "twisted" & beyond the imagination of Americans. 

* US whistleblowers have indicated the existence of an existent US Orwellian "totalitarian" state available for use by any president. 

* On the morning of 3/2/09 I faxed Senators Feinstein (Intelligence Chair) & Leahy (Judiciary Chair) my analysis indicating that the Bush had been secretly claiming quasi-dictatorial powers to use the military/CIA to target innocent critics as if they were "enemies of the state" or terrorist. Coincidentally, or not, hours later the secret legal memo discussed above was declassified. It's irrelevant for me to prove that, but you can ask the Senators to deny it. I was definitely the first expert to "connect the dots" before, and believe I am the first to "connect the dots" between the NDAA, AUMF & Pres. Bush's 10/23/2001 "secret legal memo," and the related court case & politics surrounding it & Congress' passage of the NDAA. Maybe I'm a lucky guesser. 


NOTES: 

* This is a bare bones version of my analysis. I'll be adding more evidence & links, but wanted to get this out. I've been writing about these issues for a few years, and made similar arguments & elaborated in articles on Daily Kos (e.g.  see my 9/17/2012 diary, "Historic NDAA ruling Reveals Covert War on 1st Amendment, Occupy"). 



* For my recent elaborations, also see my blog: http://theglobal99movement.blogspot.com/ (e.g. see my 7/15/12 article, "Scandal Congress & Media Missed" on ways such totalitarian powers have been & can be used in the USA). 

Pres. Bush's secret legal memos justified suspending the "free press," which I suppose could explain the baffling lack of coverage on this & so many issues. For what may another attempt to retroactively "fix" or codify this totalitarian power in the 2013 NDAA, see my article, "NDAA 2013 Legalizing US Propaganda: Could it Make Americans Less Gullible?"


For evidence journalists/academics/critics are being covertly attacked with totalitarian methods & warfare, see my (8/30/12) article, "Could Glenn Greenwald Sue US/Corporate Entities Linked to Plot to Discredit/Silence Progressive Journalists/Activists?"

Originally posted to Christopher Tucker on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:31 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not competent to follow (4+ / 0-)

    the ins and outs of law you mention, but tend to agree overall that Shrubbie overreached (probably due to Cheney and Yoo's evil miasma) and Obama has not chosen to give away those illegal powers.

    Indeed, no leader willingly gives away power once it is granted to him/her.

    First thing we need to do?  Reestablish the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

    To his eternal shame, Haggis was the one who snuck its demise into an otherwise inoffensive bill.  He blamed a staffer: but Haggis always seemed on top of his game -- if a staffer did it, it was with his implicit agreement (and the opportunity for plausible deniability: Haggis did not survive for so many decades in PA politics without knowing how to game the system).

    To make the argument that the media has a left- or right-wing, or a liberal or a conservative bias, is like asking if the problem with Al-Qaeda is do they use too much oil in their hummus. Al Franken

    by Youffraita on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 12:01:26 AM PDT

  •   Slavery was not only legal, (7+ / 0-)

    it was Constitutional. Everything the National Socialists did was legal. No legal document can guarantee that agents of government will respect individual rights, human, property or politica, any more than it can prevent any individual or group of being abusive. The law is a promise and sometimes, even though the law is presumed to promote justice, the law deprives individuals of rights unjustly. That means the law is being abused. But, as I pointed out at the start, that is not new.
    When the law is employed as a tool to deprive individuals of rights, absent any cause for imposing punishment on them, the law is more implacable than any flesh and blood tyrant because the law is potentially immortal. Moses is dead, but the ten commandments go on. See?
    What should have happened long ago is that the AUMF should have been rescinded and so should the PATRIOT Act. But, keep in mind that the latter, a compendium of hundreds of amendments to existing law had been waiting to be passed by Congress for years. An actual attack was just an opportunity to advance a law enforcement agenda that had been percolating ever since the 1968 "riots." the fear so social unrest only grew ever greater through the decades of economic deprivation because the people who were amassing wealth for themselves were also convinced that poverty is the impetus for revolution. It's not, I would argue, but people believe what they believe because the believers do not think logically and so they behave illogically. Indeed, their accumulation of material wealth, especially monetary wealth is evidence. Mindless accumulation is illogical. But try convincing people with a huge stash of money of that.
    The idea that money is worthless is horrifying to them.

    Anyway, our legal problems on the state and national level are the consequence of having hired crooks to legislate, to make laws that advantage themselves and their friends. The law, in the hands of crooks, is an ideal weapon because it looks objective and leaves no fingerprints. Also, it relies on well-intentioned people to enforce it. See, the abusers construct the law and then someone else is tasked with the job of being obedient and enforcing the law. So the law enforcers are perverted into the tools of crooks.  Which is one reason why it is said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."  Some people are absolutely convinced that, if the proper process is followed, the outcome will be good. A cow led to slaughter without fear could tell you, if she could talk, that's not true. Neither the intention, nor the process are a guarantee of good behavior. Acts have to be evaluated on their own and perspective counts.
    As to the individual human rights referred to in the Constitution (privacy and bodily integrity are not mentioned), they are presented in the context of what agents of the national government are prohibited from restricting or disrespecting, unless they have good reason -- i.e. unless the disrespect is warranted. And that good reason is supposed to be run by a member of the judiciary, unless, of course, there is an emergency. Which is what the executive branch, in the hands of Bush/Cheney argued -- an ongoing emergency, the war on terror. And the Congress went along with it, for the simple reason that our petty potentates in the legislative branch are keen to bite the hand that feeds them any chance they get. And they get away with it by pretending it's all the executive's doing and they, being mere rubber stamps, have clean hands.
    The truth is that, especially modern Republican, legislators seek their positions out of the believe that lawmakers actually rule the people and are empowered to be as unruly as they want themselves. In other words, crooks/authoritarians have discovered the perfect venue in the legislatures of our states and nation for perpetrating mischief and exploiting their fellow man. Moreover, it's possible that they can't even help themselves. What are practically incompetent humans, whose only real skill is being able to repeat what they are told and to do so interminably, to do? How are they to make a living but as secular and religious preachers? Jesus was a carpenter. His followers were practical people. But, He was done in by people, lawmakers and their followers, whom He recognized as people who "do not know what they do." Like the poor, who are probably poor because the crooks deprive them, we will probably always have predatory humans with us. And the task then and now is to recognize the deprivators by their abusive behavior and throw them out of their preferred venues, especially when their abusive behavior becomes too rampant. That's what the election coming up is about. We need to clean house.
    The good thing about the law and money is that both can be changed and their use perfected towards justice.

    Oh, sorry not to be shocked. As you can perhaps tell, I've been working out this issue for some time.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:09:34 AM PDT

    •  I'm sure you know of the Enabling Acts, which (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oxon, blueoasis

      are virtually identical to the constellation of NDAA, AUMF, Patriot Act, plus the most important, "secret interpretations," which the German parliament gave a man named Hitler...to deal w/ the "emergency," and that seemed to spin out of control...in my humble opinion.

      •  Well, I was hoping control would be imposed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluedust

        By the 2004 election. 2006 made a good start. However, by 2008 the authoritarians had regrouped and engineered an economic collapse that was ill-timed. Besides that, they didn't have all the bases covered in that the wrong Democrat came out of the primary process, in part because, for once, the Democrats had fielded a large group of competent people, so the authoritarian's support was even dispersed. It's actually possible that Edwards was the choice. He turned out to be the most deceptive and the most flawed and the most susceptible to blackmail. The problem with secret vices is that the risk of exposure is a potent leash. (I don't even remember what Edwards' position on the war was -- not correct, otherwise I would have considered him more favorably).
        Anyway, Obama adopted the health care issue from Clinton, shared the war issue with Biden, shared the financial issue with Dodd, and, to a certain extent called Edwards' bluff on the poverty issue. Kucinich was sort of pro forma on the war. He meant well, but never exerted any influence in Congress, for the simple reason that he's a grand stander. His victory against the utility pirates in Cleveland was a fluke and the rest of his career he capitalized on that one trick.
        How do I know this? I stayed in NH from 2005 to 2009 on purpose to participate in the presidential election at ground zero. I was also there for the 2004 debacle when democrats took each other out -- specifically, Gebhard sent the Missouir Mafia after Dean, to take him out and then the operatives were deployed by the same people on behalf of Bush to take out Kerry. Dean had to be dispatched early because he was an unknown and a loose cannon.

        We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 04:39:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody debunked my analysis, but yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George3

    it seems to have been ignored, despite being critically relevant to one of the most important court cases in US (recent?) history.

  •  reads like timecube. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib
  •  What constitution? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Tucker, raincrow, slatsg

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:07:16 PM PDT

  •  This is fantastic work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Tucker

    I'll try to get it to Noam, but he's a little irritated with me at the moment.  We're not going to do our next (4th) interview until after the election.  

    •  Pass on to plaintiffs. My communications are (0+ / 0-)

      let's say...a tad bit circumscribed.

      If you have connection to Noam or any of the plaintiffs,
      I'm sure they'd be grateful to get analysis that bolsters their case, ASAP.

      Thanks for feedback.

      One thing I haven't done in this diary/article is illuminate how these horrifying powers could be used...like to target the entire population or sub-groups w/ cyber-psychological warfare (e.g. persona management software to manipulate online discussions like Daily Kos, elsewhere).

      Let me know if you verbally confirm getting this thru to Noam or any plaintiff. If no one can debunk my analysis, and yet the plaintiffs/media remain unaware of these arguments that directly influence case, then I'll be justifiably "disappointed" in our so-called "free press."  

       

      •  I put it on Hedges (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christopher Tucker

        FB page.  Will email or call Noam in the morning.  He has the flu.  Hopefully he's resting by now.

        •  Perversely, AUMF powers I delineate could be used (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Diane Gee

          to covertly manipulate NDAA proceedings/plaintiffs, even US judges, Congress members, media, etc.  

          Plaintiff Alexa O'Brien already submitted testimony (not disputed by Pentagon/Obama lawyers) that she was already being targeted w/ the type of covert warfare that Bush/Obama have secretly deemed "legal" way of deterring future attacks.

          Obama lawyers only (belatedly & w/ parsed words) assured plaintiffs they wouldn't be indefinitely detained, nothing about being protected from covert warfare, which could include murder, or psyop-cyber-war + blacklisting, and other "treats," which I assure you can be much more horrific than Waterboarding & more in line w US history of COINTELPRO, McCarthyism.

          Lacking fame & a lawyer, I don't feel comfortable discussing all my relevant research.  

        •  Couldn't find your post on Hedges FB page (0+ / 0-)

          but perhaps I was looking at wrong one.

          Anyway, I responded to your email via Dkos system.

          •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

            they are fully aware of the memo and already have considered all this.  Thanks...

            •  Curious. I've never seen any reference to it, or (0+ / 0-)

              any indication they've considered the ramifications, or why the plaintiffs would voluntarily weaken their own defense of their legal standing.

              I was puzzled by Hedges prognostigations that the unexpected US "emergency freeze" attempts most likely indicated people were held in off-shore penal colonies w/o trial contradicted his other comments about the NDAA being about the darkest days of McCarthyism, etc.

              If you or they have proof of this, I'd be happy to see if & then try to make sense of it.

              •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

                Their press person put it on the official NDAA page on FB - but also said that you have been reposting this article for a week across 4 different blogs, all with promises to make edits never made....  she put it up last night anyway.  

                Here it is on that page:

                http://www.facebook.com/...

                Christopher, these are some of the best and brightest of our generation, with the best lawyers.

                It's a little presumptuous to think you are the only one that noticed this.  They know how and when to use what they use.  They know about the memo.

                Chances are Obama's panic is because people probably are being held under it already - thats a no brainer.

                Like I said, good work, but don't imagine yourself to be a central figure in the case, nor me the tool to get you there.  

                •  Ah, before 3/2/09, I was 1st expert to inform US (0+ / 0-)

                  key Senators that the Bush administration was claiming these specific powers, which nobody in the US or seemingly Congress had known about (e.g. suspend 1st Amendment). That was presumptuous & very precise.

                  It wasn't a lucky guess then or the only time.

                  If they've known about this, then they've kept it a secret & not used it to bolster their case durig the 1st phases & hearings. There's simply no evidence of this.

                  They may be holding some in the way you or the plaintiffs imagine. However, like I said, "indefinite detention" is only one small part of this, and the least likely form of deprivation academics, journalists, activists have been subjected to.

                  I've worked with the best & brightest on both sides in the US & Europe.

                  I didn't expect anything. You said my analysis was fantastic & you'd pass it on. If you did, great.

                  I have relevant knowledge they could not, accumulated since 2006, and was saying these powers were being claimed years before the NDAA '12 was ever on the agenda.  

                  I saw their case getting undermined. I shared what I felt comfortable sharing with hope it was useful.

                  No need to make it look like I believe I'm a central figure in this case, or expecting a fellow blogger to get me there. Neither are important now.

                  What's important is that these plaintiffs don't lose this case & the American victims unable to challenge their abuse & sub-human status, get a glimmer of hope. Look at McCarthy-era & COINTELPRO.

                  If anyone has evidence that anyone else provided this analysis before then I'd love to see it. If not, I was the 1st & it is relevant to this case & others. That's a falsifiable claim, not presumptious.

                  Anyway, I suppose I should see evidence that the plaintiffs are aware of the implications in the near future.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site