On KO last night Jonathan Turley came right out & said:
"...Because it is rather clear that what the President ordered was a Federal crime. Clearly defined in Federal law. But that causes a problem. Because many of the Democratic leaders and the Republican leaders have promised each other that they would not start impeachment proceedings. But when a Federal judge says the President committed a crime, it's pretty darn hard to ignore that."
(this Jonathan Turley appearance is up here at the indispensable Crooks&Liars...),
Open secret, I suppose... I just can't recall hearing a public figure state it so baldly, right there for all to see.
Perhaps it is my Eastern European descent talking, but I've always been more in favor of imprisonment or impalement than mere impeachment (Dear Mr. Mukasey- that was somewhat snarky), something that goddamn piece of paper used to allow... (Perhaps you could brush up on our disavowal of cruel & unusual punishment while you're there? Pretty please?)
See "Constitution, US: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So um when will they start accepting flag designs for whatever this new country is the multinationals are designing for we the peeps? Will they mark it with some kind of ceremony- will we be given amnesty to bring in our old stars & stripes & trade these tired old rags full of sound & fury but signifying nothing in for the new flag of this unrecognizable country? A country of rendition, torture, of... thoughtcrime?!!
See Senate Bill #1959
From the Bill:
The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
Some definitions profered by the Bill:
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
The bill has been said to define Thoughtcrime, providing a legal basis for the prevention and prosecution of it.
The Bill, if passed, would (from Wiki):
Chertoff would be appointed to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States...
Did you just feel that chill, or was it just me? Don't skip over "a university based--"
CURRENT STATUS:
This bill has been passed in the House, with a vote of 404 to 6. Twenty-two representatives missed the vote.
The only six representative who voted against the bill were:
* Jeff Flake, R-Arizona
* Dana Rohrabacher, R-California
* Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii
* Jerry Costello, D-Illinois
* Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
* John Duncan, R-Tennessee
The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.
The people now go on to contact their Senators....
SOME CRITICISMS:
Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens." And he warned that local officials can seek federal funding by targeting local dissident groups. "Once again, no basis for terrorism, but 'they’ve been dissenters, they have their internet sites reviewed and we don't like those'."
LewRockwell.com columnist Jeff Knaebel criticizes it as an Orwellian thought crime bill specifically targeting the civilian population in the USA. He mentions that it defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system which the government deems to be "extremist." He further criticizes it for defining "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" as thought crimes. He also claims that since the bill does not specifically define what an "extremist" belief system is, that it will be up to the government at any specific time to determine what is and is not an "extremist" belief system. Knaebel also proposes that Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" could be considered thought crime.
Interviews on Democracy Now on the Bill and why it wasn't covered on the .... dare I say it? On the "news".
(props to ms_in_la for bringing this to my attention & allowing me to use).
------
That new flag, boys... has it got a skull & crossbones by any chance?