| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
| Bush signs terror interrogation law
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago
President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.
Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.
A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.
Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.
"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."
Bush signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We will answer brutal murder with patient justice," Bush said. "Those who kill the innocent will be held to account."
Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Bush's Cabinet.
He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.
The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning — such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment — but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."
"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."
Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence. Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.
"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"
The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."
"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.
"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.
The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.
Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.
The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Bush is expected also to try some or all the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.
The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.
The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation, but those documents are not usually made public and Snow did not reveal when it might be issued.
___
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
| Subject: 'Democracy Now' headlines: President Bush Signs 2006 Military Commissions Act
Headlines for October 18, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/18/1439225
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- President Bush Signs 2006 Military Commissions Act
- Admin Moves to Dismiss Detainee Challenges
- Rights Groups Vow Challenge to Detainee Law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush Signs 2006 Military Commissions Act
President Bush has signed into law one of the most controversial acts of his time in the White House. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 strips detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge their own detention or treatment. It expands the definition an enemy combatant and gives the president the power to detain them indefinitely – including US citizens. Secret and coerced evidence could be used to try detainees held in U.S. military prisons. The bill also immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for torturing detainees captured before the end of last year. On Tuesday, President Bush held a signing ceremony at the White House.
President Bush: "This bill spells out specific, recognizable offences that would be considered crimes in the handling of detainees so that our men and women who question captured terrorists can perform their duties to the fullest extent of the law. And this bill complies with both the spirit and the letter of our international obligations. As I've said before, the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values."
Several Arrested in White House Protest Against Detainee Law
Outside the White House, several demonstrators were arrested at a protest that drew more than one hundred people. The activists wore orange jumpsuits and brandished dog leashes to represent the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.
Unidentified protester: "We reject that the act repudiates a half-century of international precedent by allowing the President to decide secretly and unilaterally what abusive interrogation methods he considers permissible."
Within Hours of Signing, Admin Moves to Dismiss Detainee Challenges
The administration wasted no time in putting the law into action. The Los Angeles Times reports that within two hours of the signing ceremony, the Justice Department moved to dismiss dozens of lawsuits filed by detainees challenging their imprisonment.
Rights Groups Vow Challenge to Detainee Law
Meanwhile, lawyers for detainees and rights groups say they’ll press ahead with challenging the law in court.
Vincent Warren, Executive Director of the Center For Constitutional Rights: "There are no guarantees and there are no safeguards for people who are being charged with terrorist activities to see the evidence against. And if you can't see the evidence against you, you can't fight the evidence against you. This is not about finding out the truth." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: |
| Olbermann on the Murder of Habeus Corpus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUzUljH8EHU
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rense.com/general73/ekei.htm
Keith Olbermann & Constitutional
Law Prof Jonathan Turley
On Military Commissions Act
MSNBC
10-18-6
To assess what this law will truly mean for us all, I'm joined by Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.
As always, sir, great thanks for your time.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."
Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?
TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.
And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.
So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board.
OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
TURLEY: It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations.
Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
It couldn't be more significant. And the strange thing is, we've become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, "Dancing with the Stars." I mean, it's otherworldly.
OLBERMANN: Is there one defense against this, the legal challenges against particularly the suspension or elimination of habeas corpus from the equation? And where do they stand, and how likely are they to overturn this action today?
TURLEY: Well, you know what? I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over-taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along.
And so we may have, in this country, some type of ueber-president, some absolute ruler, and it'll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial.
It's something that no one thought-certainly I didn't think-was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon.
OLBERMANN: And if Justice Kennedy tries to change us back, we can always call him an enemy combatant.
The president reiterated today the United States does not torture. Does this law actually guarantee anything like that?
TURLEY: That's actually when I turned off my TV set, because I couldn't believe it. You know, the United States has engaged in torture. And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the president could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death.
The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for.
Who are we now? I know who we were then. But when the president said that we don't torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set.
OLBERMANN: That same individual fell back on the same argument that he'd used about the war in Iraq to sanction this law. Let me play what he said and then ask you a question about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Yet with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Does he understand the irony of those words when taken out of the context of this particular passage or of what he perceives as the war against terror, and that, in fact, the threat we may be facing is the threat of President George W. Bush?
TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won't be kind to President Bush.
But frankly, I don't think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.
OLBERMANN: Well, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I think we've done a little bit of what we could have done, and...
TURLEY: That's true.
OLBERMANN: ... I'll see you at Gitmo. Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University. As always, greatest thanks for your time, Jon.
TURLEY: Thanks, Keith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent quotes, Tony... Especially in the age of 'The New Soviet' with the signing into law of the Military Commission Act yesterday (which basically shreds the Bill of Rights via going against Habeas Corpus).
Tony wrote:
"Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government" - Robert Taft
"Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat" - General Vo Nguyen Giap
"Whether or not patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, national security can be the last refuge of the tyrant" - Lord Acton"
"All of the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not doing the fighting" - George Orwell
"IF tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison
Those who were praised by Reagan as "freedom fighters" - recruited and trained and funded by our CIA to fight a 'holy war' against the Russians in Afghanistan - are now called "insurgents" by Bush.
The chickens have come home to roost!!
Will we just NEVER learn?? Welcome to 1984 in America!! | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed? |
| Forwarded:
Subject: Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:59:56 -0700
H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006
or
Our Grandchildren are Going to Hate Us!'
Video:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mca-2006.htm
Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed
President’s Inaction Equals ‘Pocket Veto’
by Pat Shannan
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=105629;title=APFN
Repealing the Constitution: The Military Commissions Act of 2006
by Robert Harmon, National Lawyers Guild Friday, Oct. 20, 2006
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732755.php
UPDATE: H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006
Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=105629;title=APFN
President’s Inaction Equals ‘Pocket Veto’
by Pat Shannan
Talk show host Alex Jones’ brief interview last week with an
unknown caller has sent constitutionists and legal
researchers scurrying for the law books.
“The Military Commission Act is not law!” the man barked.
“The ‘pocket veto’ clause of the constitution has already
nullified it.”
He then pointed out to the national radio audience exactly
what the part about “pocket veto” in Article One, Section 7
of the U. S. Constitution means. Indeed, it appears that
President Bush’s signing of the infamous “6166,” which in
effect eliminates the 4th Amendment protection of citizens
in their homes and a whole lot more, is moot. He was too
late.
Now Jones and many others are wondering, who in an official
capacity is going to point this out and enforce it?
Here is what the law says and what happens when a sitting
president sticks a bill passed by congress into his pocket
instead of signing it and sending it back:
A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill
within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.
Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto
to take effect.
If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign
the bill, it becomes law without his signature.
Now to the current specifics.
From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: "...If any
Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevents
its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket
veto cannot be overridden. A pocket veto is a legislative
maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S.
Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any
legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not
including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by
default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress
adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the
bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not
actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill
in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a
pocket veto.
Congress passed 6166 on September 29th, presented it to the
President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th.
Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had
adjourned, thereby rendering it “vetoed” by constitutional
standards.
On September 6, 2006, President Bush asked Congress to pass
the Military Commission Act of 2006. This Act – among other
things – sought to re-define U.S. obligations under Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, international treaties
signed by every country in the world. Common Article 3
places an absolute prohibition on inhumane treatment of
detainees during an armed conflict.
Specifically, the President wanted Congress to replace the
absolute prohibition on inhumane treatment of Common Article
3 with a "flexible" standard, which would assess on a case-
by-case basis whether particular conduct would amount to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Human Rights First
criticized the Administration's proposal for adding
ambiguity to an otherwise clear standard of Common Article
3, and would open the door to more Abu Ghraib-style abuses.
In response to the administration's proposal, more than 45
retired senior military leaders wrote to members of the U.S.
Senate expressing their opposition to redefining Common
Article 3 on the grounds that it would compromise the safety
of U.S. Service men and women. They were joined by Former
Secretary of State Colin Powell and former U.S. Chairmen of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Vessey, Hugh Shelton, and
William Crowe, who also sent letters expressing their
opposition to redefining Common Article 3.
Spearheaded by Republican Senators John McCain, John Warner,
and Lindsey Graham, the Senate Armed Services Committee
passed an alternative bill, sponsored by McCain, Warner, and
Graham, that preserves Common Article 3. The Administration
then agreed to negotiate with the key Senators, and a
compromise was reached on September 21, which preserved the
meaning and requirements of Common Article 3. Human Rights
First welcomed this aspect of the compromise. Human Rights
First opposed the final version of the Military Commissions
Act, however, because it contained a number of provisions
that raised serious concerns about compliance with the
Geneva Conventions and with fundamental fair trial and due
process principles. Among the most troubling aspects of the
Military Commissions Act are provisions that purport to:
Grant unprecedented and unchecked authority to the Executive
Branch to label as “unlawful enemy combatants”, and possibly
to detain indefinitely, an overly broad range of people,
including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents inside
the United States
Deny independent judicial review, through habeas, of
detentions of U.S. legal permanent residents and non-
citizens
Limit the sources of law to which the courts may look and
the scope of review on appeal
Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act and seek to eliminate
accountability for past violations of the law by the
president and his administration.
Permit evidence obtained through coercion to be used in the
military commission proceedings, with certain limitations.
Permit the introduction of classified evidence against the
accused even if the accused has not had the opportunity to
review and challenge the “sources, methods, or activities”
by which the government acquired the evidence.
Restrict full disclosure to the accused of exculpatory
evidence
Give the Secretary of Defense authority to deviate from time-
tested military justice standards for fair trials
Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by
Congress would "prevent" the President from returning a
vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the
Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment
sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the
two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to
allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929,
the United States Supreme Court ruled that a bill had to be
returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable
of work. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a
short enough time that the Senate could still act with
"reasonable promptitude" on the veto. However, a five-month
adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket
veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some
ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed
pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse
ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases[1].
For matters regarding the authority of the federal
government, the place to start the analysis is with the
United States Code. In 1 U.S.C. § 106a, we find the
following:
Section 106a. Promulgation of laws
Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate
and House of Representatives, having been approved by the
President, or not having been returned by him with his
objections, becomes a law or takes effect, it shall
forthwith be received by the Archivist of the United States
from the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution,
or vote is returned by the President with his objections,
and, on being reconsidered, is agreed to be passed, and is
approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and
thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it shall be received
by the Archivist of the United States from the President of
the Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives in
whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved, and
he shall carefully preserve the originals.
Attorney and constitutional expert Harmon Taylor of Dallas,
Texas harbors some consternation about the federal courts
disregarding the constitution in recent years and ruling on
federal statutes and court precedent.
He points out, “This language is curiously silent regarding
the "10-day Rule" set forth in Art. I, § 7, cl. 2. It is
also noticeably silent about adjournment and any effect that
adjournment may have on the "’10-day Rule.’
”Therefore, the next source to check is judicial
construction, and the best starting place for that is with
Supreme Court opinions. While Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U.S. 417 (1998), specifically addresses and thwarts
executive law-making efforts via the so-called "Line Item
Veto," and, so, is not directly on point with our current
question, it's very helpful on the applicability of Art. I,
§ 7, cl. 2, generally, thus, the "10-day Rule," in
particular. The Court cites the law-making procedure in
full in n.28. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 438-39 n.28. Even more
importantly, the Court identifies that the "veto" power
being analyzed is read in terms of the whole context. This
is the point raised by n.29.
Applying that to the present circumstance, it's difficult to
picture how the Supreme Court would read the whole of Art.
I, § 7, cl. 2 for purposes of "veto" analysis but then read
only part of it for purposes of a question under the "10-day
Rule." So, where all of Art. I, § 7, cl. 2 is material,
then both the "10-day Rule" and "adjournment" are material
procedural facts in determining whether an act by the
"congress" and presented to the "president" actually
produced federal law.”
Taylor also pointed out to us that a separate new question
arises as to whether the congress may enact legislation
inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions to which the
federal government is a signatory. In the recent case of
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), the
Supreme Court clearly identified several variances between
the "military commission" process being utilized by the
present administration and the trial process contemplated by
the Geneva Convention. Should it turn out that the most
recent legislation implements that same, or a very similar,
"military commission" trial process, already characterized
by the Court as "illegal," then the question arises as to
whether legislation that strays from the Geneva Convention
standards is federal law.
“The answer may seem intuitively obvious,” Taylor said, “but
this one will take some additional study and reflection.
Your conclusions are correct, constitutionally speaking,” he
said, referring to President Bush’s delayed signing of the
bill, “but you can bet that the Supreme Court, if it comes
to that, will do everything it can to avoid making a
constitutionally based decision.”
Indeed. Even as the most amateurish constitutional
historians realize, we have not been able to keep the
republic Ben Franklin feared we could not 220 years ago.
Now it seems we may have to be concerned with that
piece of philosophy from Mao -- the one about
“Power coming out of the barrel of a gun.” | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
James Patton wrote:
Brilliant! Keith Olberman explains how the elimination of Habeas Corpus
nullifies NINE out of TEN of the Bill of Rights (which he now calls
the Bill of Right).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjJ9_Y8bLU4
The US Constitution says habeas corpus may only be SUSPENDED
(not eliminated) in a time of rebellion or invasion. Do you see the U.S.
being invaded? Do you see a rebellion?
This is the same Constitution Bush solemnly swore to defend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjJ9_Y8bLU4
The same one he later called 'just a goddamn piece of paper.'
When I was in Canberra I visited Parliament House
where they house a copy of the Magna Carta from 1215.
This historic document heralds a sea change from the ancient
idea of the 'divine right of kings' and gives little people rights
they never had before.
With what we did to Scott Parkin, I don't know why the politicians
don't just roll it up and use it for toilet paper?
http://www.scottparkin.org/what.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
| Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
Written by Frank Morales
Thursday, 26 October 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
Photo source: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110478.jpg
Comments
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 10:21:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the "Gulag Ameripelago" at P!.
ddjango P!P!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 09:10:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an extremely important report. It's time to urge all and sundry to think about WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO WHEN THE CONSTITUTION IS SUSPENDED. Examples: widespread general strike and announcement of tax refusal -- just the beginning but these tactics do allow a nonviolent response. Allies will need to include Republicans who still care about the republic and citizens who believe in the right to bear arms. We may have until 2008 to be ready.
Dave Gutknecht
Athens, Ohio
More details
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 11:52:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great article. Thanks. Let me share a small detail about (first responders).
Acoording to John Joyce, Battalion Chief FDNY, Motorola has control of first responders through the nationwide use of their newest radios that feature the TSPK signal. Joyce is featured on the Bonus section of the video Improbable Collapse put out by Connect The Dots and has co-authored a book titled Radio Silence. I just found this info this morning. It the responsibility of all of use who are awake to wake up our friends, realatives and neighbors.
Its all over!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 18:54:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot believe we have allowed this to happen, it must be fixed!!!!
Agree
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 21:15:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush has tried very hard at becoming Matt Dillon. An undercurrent of congressmen and senators are working to make it easier to change the Posse Comitatus law and elimiating habeas corpus. This gives the President authority to declare martial law by taking away the power of the county (and state and local government) and imprisoning individuals without due-process of the lawful constitution. Laws against such usurpers of the people go back to the Magna Carta. That doc made the "hierarchy" responsible to a body of representatives of the governed. By way of scare tactics, Congress is giving power back to the "Monarch." This is ironic in that it directly contradicts the aim of making other countries democratic. In essence, they win, "we" (US) lose!
mythought
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 22:40:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds ok to me. If somthing serious happens that the/a president feels that there will be widespread panic and rioting and stuff like that, then he should be allowed to step in and protect the rest of the citizens. If a bio-terror attack happens and there are meds for it and persons wont take it, then they should be forced, les they spread it to innocents. Illigials, they should get out anyway. They live off the gov and the people (rich and poor alike) that work everyday. It makes me mad that I sacrifice everyday for people who arent even citizens. The government wants to force them out, put them in camps, send them back, well that is better than local government. Expecally the governments in TX, AZ, NM, CA, FL, GA, and NY, whos populations of illigals actually W O R K I N G and getting free health care and dont have a right to, are out of control. This law doesnt bother me, it would only concern someone who is breaking the law.
Observant
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 23:58:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History shows that during the mid 1930's another "elected leader" in Germany made the same sweeping moves towards dictatorship...Open your eyes America, Your elected president is running away with your laws, lives, liberties and futures. He is a very, very dangerous man!
What Constitution?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 00:03:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal of Habeus Corpus effectively ends the Constitution and Bill of Rights already. Olbermann offers a special report on his website, 'Who needs Habeus Corpus?
This was just adding the nails to the coffin, ... er coup.
The correct link to this bill is: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
I had to see it to believe it. It's easy to miss.
Sec. 1075 Patent terms extensions for the badges of the American Legion.
Sec. 1076 Use of the Armed Forces in public emergencies.
Sec. 1077 Hunting and Fishing opportunities for Armed Forces.
And this is what some call 'patriotism'?
nullSec. 1076 Use of the Armed Forces in public emergencies.
Empires
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 01:12:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all Empires through-out History, America is fast approaching the point of collapse if this continues.
Human beings will NOT allow themselves to be Dominated. This is a Historical FACT.
However, If the Citizens of America do not Stand together against this threat Before it becomes Reality. Use your Imagination.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 01:31:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the constitution is suspended? C'mon now, isn't that a little bit of an overreaction? Maybe after the constitution gets suspended, they'll repeal the Declaration of Independence and create a new communist nation. No, that probably won't happen either. This is just one law, written about from a very obviously biased point of view.
Americans - Now Is The Time To Stand Up
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 01:50:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Gestapo tatics. Vote and make changes, while we still can vote. Time is running out. Bush could only of done this with republicans help. Vote Democrats or Independants.
Our children and the futire of America is at stake. The camps are already in place in America, now the laws are to.
Help save America.....vote!
Rights can't be taken away
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 03:57:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important thing to remember is that the US military couldn't win in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq after two tries. They can't win in a country that has a population of only 24 million people.
Keep in mind, millions of Americans don't pay taxes and never have because they simply don't want to. Right after 9/11 happened, I stopped paying income taxes to a corrupt government because I don't support evil dictatorships. You can choose the same.
A piece of paper doesn't give you the right to walk on the earth as one of God's creatures. You have that without the bill of rights or a constitution. No man can give you the right to be a free spirited person just as no man can take that right away. The idea that you are "given" what you already have is just an illusion that is created so that one might believe that their right to exist can be manipulated. It cannot. That is the biggest like ever told.
Anyone who is upset with how the US is operating today needs to study the French revolution. When push came to shove, the king and queen of France were deemed to be no longer needed and their heads were chopped off.
In my mind, there are five heads that need to be taken. Rumsfield, Bush, Rice, Chenney and Rove. Seeing those five heads stuck on pikes would be a good step towards showing the world that the people of America are NOT the government of United States.
Finally!!!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 04:07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's about time the U.S. Government took a little more control over the country. Don't get me wrong, I love this country, and I love our freedom. But, our freedom has been more than threatened in past years, it has been ABUSED. We are teetering on the edge of anarchy becasue people have distorted and abused their 1st amendment rights. The 4th amendment is a crock. And the 2nd amendment should be adapted to modern needs. Thank God and our forefather for the constitution we have, but it needs to change with the times. I agree completely with martial law and can't wait to see it in action. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 05:15:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if hillery clinton gets in there will be another civil war here
We are in serious trouble
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 06:33:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very bad, we thought he was bad before just wait now that he can declare marshall law he won't have to leave the White House in 2008, he can just declare marshall law and install himself as the new Castro.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 06:50:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought provoking!
John Galt
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 07:10:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are about to experience Bagdad in America.
Revulsion is one step from revolution.
Repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act after Katrina was a trial balloon to see what would be tolerated by the People; this action was met with deafening silence and the stage was set.
Just as there was never any intention to rebuild all of New Orleans, neither was there ever any intention to leave Iraq.
There is a limit to the People's patience. It would be best for the Federal government not to overreach.
rj
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 07:51:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us not forget the dark days for the CONSTITUTION under the dark and insidious reign of JFK. Thousands of U.S. Army troops and Federal Marshals sent into Ole Miss and Alabama without Marshall Law. Look what 8 years of Clinton/Algore has wrought. While he played with Monica's *****; we get Musilum terror camps, Waco, the Gonzalus boy sent to Cuba at gun point and our Military gutted by Liberals in Congress. Liberals like Leahy, Madam Clinton, John MaCain and Kerry. We may have until 2008 to be ready. We may have until 2008 to be ready.
nscherz2000@yahoo.com
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 08:22:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you better read this!
Peterson
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 08:56:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked to this, I read that Bush has been pushing for an amendment to the MC legislation that would allow the authorities to shoot draft dodgers on sight. For sure, we're living in very scary times and here's me thinking thank god I left the States two years ago.
Jim Eagle Feather
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 11:11:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that Bush signed these Martial Law changes the same day as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, makes it very clear that his Junta is lying when it says the Military Commissions Act was not meant for American citizens.
SJSHECKMAN@COMCAST.NET
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 12:45:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS
better re think some things
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 13:26:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to remember back in the summer of 05 when we had the hurricaines that people were pissing and moaning that we needed Troops brought in to help. We couldn't place troops there because of the laws.
He signed those laws so that we can have troops where we need them and when we need them.
I also notice that you intersperse fact with your own comments about what can happen.
In your own words "For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event."
In the case of a bio-terror event, I think I'd be happy to have the people quaranined. Would you rather have them be able to just go wherever they want to infect even more people?
Also, one would look at some african nations and see what happens when a war breaks out and 100 of thousands of people fee over the border and enter another country to live in huge unmanaged refugee camps, I think the US is right to have plans in place in case an event like that happens.
I feel that most of you people are the same people that piss and moan about when something doesn't go right. It wasn't planned for, how in the world could they have missed the point. It has to be some kind of plot!
hknight@citynet.net
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 14:38:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the ocean rises 4' due to "Global Warming",then we will need some major crowd control,And yes I hate to say it but a strong Dictator would probably help. That's the only reason I can see for some thing like this.Can any one send me a coppy of the Pentagon,s report on global warming,I hear it's really scary.
JFK's days were GREAT days.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 15:44:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nscherz2000@yahoo.com, you stupid nutjob, JFK federalized the guard in order to escort a 19-year old black female to her university classes, even though the racist pigs were standing at the door to the lecture hall trying to stop her from entering. Now, if you see a problem with that, you're a total racist pig also. Enjoy your KKK rallies because that's where you belong.
Immune System Response
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 17:01:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think of the society as a single living organism, then this is an immune system response to what the organism perceives as an infection.
Like a fever or bout of the runs that in of itself can kill the body, it is still the bodys way of killing of an infection.
The survival f the organism IS threatened by its own immune response but it still has to respond in the only way it known how.
The fever (as it were) is still a ways off from breaking and (to extend the metaphor) the body is stll trying to produce th correct antibodys to eliminate the pathogen.
This will continue (for better or (perhaps only in the sort term) worse.
As this natural process contiues...God help us all, and God bless America (for she is in need of the blessing)
Peace...(if possible)
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 17:05:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is horrible....all the blood, sweat, and tears that our forefathers have given for (at the time) the idea of freedom and deomcracy to now just be sucked up and thrown away is an insult to them and the destruction of the foundation of America and its principles.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 17:07:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is horrible....all the blood, sweat, and tears that our forefathers have given for (at the time) the idea of freedom and deomcracy to now just be sucked up and thrown away is an insult to them and the destruction of the foundation of America and its principles.
Rockwell
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 22:59:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are indeed dark times. Our only hope: the coming elections and a new Congress that will do its job.
iVoryTowerz
Yay bush
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 23:01:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm tired of you Bush haters. No one really wants to hear it. Bush does not want to take your rights away, he hasn't lied to the country, and he doesn't want to hurt Americans. Have a little more faith. Its for protection of America. He's not "torturing" americans, he's torturing terrorists. Chill you crazy people.
a few simple country boy observations
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 00:38:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm....perhaps he was responding to the liberals that not only blamed him for rita and katrina, but also blamed him for doing nothing....now he doesn't have to wait for a worthless mayor such as the mayor of new orleans to help people that blame him for no help. remember those that accused him of "no help" are experts on help, having been on welfare for three + generations. also,perhaps he can also round up the illegal aliens that are running rampant into my country, to where we now have mexican mafia shooting up houses in my neighborhood, because the illegal immigrants living in these houses aren't paying their drug accounts off in time. i personally hope the 82nd airborne drops in and rounds up every wetback in texas
Larry Hawkins
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 00:46:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Please God, stop the Madness!
Freedom?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:11:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 6 years I have become further disinchanted with our government. Unfortunately I made a huge mistake voting for George Bush and other republicans. I am sorry for what I have done and plan to correct my actions this election season and in 2008. I hope it is not to late.
Truly sorry from Colorado
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:19:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi people
I am not sure if alot of you follow me when I talk but this is one of those times when I am at a loss for words. Over the last few years I have watch our democracy corrode at the hands of men and women who care not for the american people that they supposedly represent. I have watched as they strip away at our civil liberties and look over our shoulders. They have lead us down a path of self destruction. Our very way of life is now at stake. President Bush and his administration, the same people who openly lied to drag us into a war that has cost the lives of thousands of our brave soldiers and hundreds of thousands of lives in the middle east for a cause that was not ours to deal with in the first place. They have total control over marshal law now. On October 17 of this year President Bush quietly signed a bill into law that may be a fatal blow to our democracy and to our way of life. With a slight movement of the hand he has nullified laws that were set inplace to protect the american people from tyranny on a domestic front. You see at one time great men and women set down a set of laws that would protect the people of this great country from a president gaining to much power. Here is the article on the offending piece of legislature.
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
If you care at all about your country, you family, or the ones you love you will rise up and act against this vile treachery.
Not Watching Anymore,
Nelson Shawn Kauley
A Cheyenne Indian
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:26:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is old news. Do a web search on "REX-84", and you'll see that this sort of thing has been in planning for a long time.
First FEMA gets shuffled into Homeland "Security", now the assaults on Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention? We're already well down the slippery slope.
Under the radar...
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:28:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any other egregious 'rule'...most people won't even notice until troops are on the streets frisking people at checkpoints. They slipped this one under the radar, and used the Military Commissions Act (which was signed into law on the very same day) as a diversion.
This administration knows that it will lose it's majority in the Senate here in a few weeks, and they're doing everything they can to consolidate power now.
A little editing, please. Air Force in
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:42:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These kinds of slip-ups IN QUOTES, no less, really tend to discredit your ranting. I really have no idea what to believe, and what you say sounds very dark, but how am I supposed to place any reliance on your article when you are saying there was a USAF in 1878?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 05:26:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I know is if they want to come round me up, no amount of legislation is going to help them accomplish it. I will go down with both barrels blazing, as will a million of my fellow Americans.
If you don't own a firearm, now is the time to get one. It could save your life some day, and the way things are going, it probably will.
Seriously, how can this be happing?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 06:05:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When is the American public actually going to take notice of these things? I think if the senate gave a shit and the people pulled their head out of their ass we wouldn't be in this situation!
With the '06 elections coming up, there are bound to be plenty of anti-Bush administration rallies. This might be the perfect time for our fair president to use his new power against people he sees as "threats".
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:12:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this a violation of the 10th amendment?
Oh Please
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:22:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First it was Bush the idiot, Bush the Election Stealer, The Tool of Karl Rove. Now we have the conspiracy of dunces suspending the Constitution.
The liberals were wrong about Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush & Quayle, Clinton for God's sake, and Bush again.
Everytime this nonsense comes up I vociferously encourage you to promote it from the mountain tops, because it will be your undoing
Merry Fitzmas to all and to all a goodnight!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:25:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:26:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
next thing you know he'll pass something saying he can be president for life
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:36:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us not forget the dark days for the CONSTITUTION under the dark and insidious reign of JFK. Thousands of U.S. Army troops and Federal Marshals sent into Ole Miss and Alabama without Marshall Law. Look what 8 years of Clinton/Algore has wrought. While he played with Monica's *****; we get Musilum terror camps, Waco, the Gonzalus boy sent to Cuba at gun point and our Military gutted by Liberals in Congress. Liberals like Leahy, Madam Clinton, John MaCain and Kerry. We may have until 2008 to be ready. We may have until 2008 to be ready.
JFK was ensuring that democracy was enabled for ALL American citizens, something "Ole Miss" thought applied only to whites, and he did it without suspending Habeus Corpus. Do you agree with "Ole Miss"? As for "Lets blame Clinton", terrorists are thriving under Bush. There are many more now then when Clinton was pres. Bush ignored the "terrorist issue" for 8 months, which allowed 9/11 to happen. Waco was an insane Fundy Christian cult, like the many that our dear leader panders his office to. And do you really think the state has the right to take a child away from a father just because it looks good on the news?
PS: It's spelled "Martial", as in war, not Marshall. It's in the title of the article, for God's sake.
darkstar1970
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:46:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
funny how the clinton admin "gutted" the military, and yet in 2001-2003 it was able to topple two regimes halfway around the world in record time. i remember no massive military building/spending increases during Dub's fist year or so.
canada
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 10:02:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
start learning this anthem as it may be useful in the near future
We the people are in for a world of SHIT
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 10:07:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When are we the people of the USA going to rise up against this soon one world order and take back what is our God given RIGHTS??? It is time we stand together as ONE!!!
Remember
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 10:30:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rights are only for upstanding, Christian WHITE people.
Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and others need not apply.
Thus rule the Republicans.
Thanks
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:33:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for writing this illuminating piece. It's starting to replicate across the internet now, so I'm hoping more people will become aware of it. What an enormous bill with so very many provisions. Kudos for finding this within it.
=e
Leahy is a hack.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:43:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leahy is a partisan, BDS hack, why should I listen to what he says?
This is such a fucking joke...
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:47:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guess none of u visit gun boards or have little regards for 2nd Amendment issues? HR5122 been hotly debated since May and the NRA has continually seek support from gun owners and right advocates in making their voices heard by our representatives. Like it or not, regardless of ur political views and affiliation, the NRA(and many others, like Jews for the Preaservation of Gun Ownership jpfo.org) has always worked and continues to work in preserving our Constitution.
http://www.givethemback.com/
watch Calif Highway Patrol officers attack New Orlean resident Pattie Conie during hurrican Katrina disaster relief:
http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed
it's already happened and will continue as long as we let it happen! Stop the blame games and get involved!!
ET man
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:59:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We havent been under the constitution since 1913, emergency powers act puts us into martial law. Ever noticed the state courts have the gold ribbon around it. Admiralty law. Not Constitutional Law. President overrides constituion and supremet court as no power as long as emergency pwers act is initiated and every president inacts it first day on the job. They are the terrorist not anyone else. The bankers, just look at income taxes. why do they keep going after it when Supreme Court already made a ruling????? Admiralty law overides Supreme Court. The next move now that the Detention Act(HR 6166) is signed is to move in a Democratic house and president to take away the guns, then you dont want to know the next move.
End of the US
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:33:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th Reich has begun. Already the gestapo detains demonstrators, suspends habeas corpus, bans books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, conducts warrant-less wiretaps, uses false-flag operations (9/11) and starts illegal wars based on lies. Neo-cons are the new Nazis. Much of Germany did not know what was going on until it was too late. We can probably agree that the WWII German populace was far more intelligent that today's average American. How long until they realize?
Final link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Cynthia
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:36:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we going to go thru another debacle like OHIO State in the 70's. I thought all of that was behind us. My poor kids!
Why don't we look at what 8 years of Cl
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:51:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nscherz2000@yahoo.com you are ignorant to say the least. Our economy was strong. The American dollar was really worth something when travelling abroad. There was no deficit. And we had more allies than we ever had before. Maybe you should get laid.
bear90039@yahoo.com
Jesus
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:53:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conservative parodies on this blog are hysterical. At least, I'm assuming there are no real conservatives posting here considering the mindless drivel I'm reading.
The constitution: Is Bush empowering en
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 19:35:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: Military members take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies, foreign and domestic... Some would say that Bush is only trying to make it easier to control a situation which might get out of control in the US during an emergency.
Fact: A terrorist attack has already occurred. The only quetions remains now is when he'll make the declaration?.. Possibly on election day in order to prevent the constitutional process from removing him from office?
When this power used by the president, then you can rightly count on the enlisted military member's support to the president, as it is in their oath to support the president. However, the officers swear to defend the constitution. Being that the enlisted members will look to their chain of command for a lawful order, and as the officers may object to support the president, it will be the enlisted following the order of the president in order to bypass or remove an objecting officer.
Fact: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will [B}support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic[/B]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
for a history of the oath:
Military Oaths
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 19:51:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm tired of you Bush haters. No one really wants to hear it. Bush does not want to take your rights away, he hasn't lied to the country, and he doesn't want to hurt Americans. Have a little more faith. Its for protection of America. He's not "torturing" americans, he's torturing terrorists. Chill you crazy people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ur right, he isnt tourturin americans, just prisoners of war, which i believe is a violation of international law... so is the american presidant above the law? u seem 2 be sayin its ok 2 torture people, so yeah, bush isnt tryin 2 hurt americans... just everyobody else!!!!!!!!!
this may shock u but: america isnt the ONLY country in the world
as one
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 20:33:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one world order is right. be prepared to stand up and fight. our freedoms are at stake. Laws were made to protect us. and now only to conrol us...
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 20:46:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 30% of Americans vote....
less than 15% of that group have any idea of the issues........
Americans have not been asked to sacrifice in the Korean war, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Iraq.....
No one cares about the economy except when they pump gas.....
Any one who reads history knows that at the outset of every war the Presidency seeks more power, contains civil liberties,Lincoln, WIlson, Roosevelt and throws its people in concentration camps, Japanese in WWII, Germans and Italians during both world wars....
Our system survives......
The Ogre
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 20:54:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be an epidemic of "chicken little" amongst us. However, it appears that there are a few sane people on this blog.
There are good reasons for the actions taken as described. The President is being pro-active like a leader should.
I really enjoy reading some of the lefties'diatribe. It's better than the Sunday funnies. null
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 21:36:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an interview w/ the author of this article, Frank Morales
I hope that law enforcement and military officers will remember their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution when they are being asked to follow these laws, and refuse.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 21:45:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
next thing you know he'll pass something saying he can be president for life
Some repuclicon tried back in February to suspend that part of the constitution that limits presidency to 2 terms
Isn't this a violation of the 10th amendment?
Just like the MCA06 violates the the 5th, 4th, 6th, among others and bush violating the first with his "Free speech zones"
"These are the times that try men's souls"-Thomas Paine
"The tree of liberty must be renewed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots" - Thomas Jefferson
Quite talking
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:34:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A I have stated in many bloggs the time for talk is over. You can write and bitch 24/7 and it will not make one bit of difference. We have passed the "if" stage and must prepare for the "when" stage. What will happen has happened before, Germany in the 1930's is but one example. We have sat on our ass while the tv and news media have fed us censored news and most of you didn't even know it. What you must do now is prepare yourself and those you love for the coming martial law and the slavery and "relocation" that is to follow to the camps that Kellogg, Brown and Root are being paid $383,000,000 to renovate and prepare. Plan well and know what you are going to do when soldiers, ours or those from other countries, take to our streets. If you are going to make a stand, so be it, be prepared, have everything you will need right down to the water you will drink. If you plan on departing for other parts have several routes picked out and have everything you will need including extra gas to get there. Remember what you don't have you may very well have to do without. Also don't pack what you don't need as it can slow you down in more ways than one.
Some may question my words by saying we are not at that point yet. My answer to that is "that point" may come in an hour, a week, a month or a year. Should you guess wrong it could be a fatal mistake. If the current situation does come to the point where these actions are necessary we may still be able to take back our country but only if in a time of great confusion, stress and fear you have plan that will allow you to seek others with similar feelings away from the controlled areas.
In closing one last thought. Write all you want of what the bastards in Washington have done to our country but remember they already know what they have done and therefore your words become empty. On the other hand, if thousands or millions were to write of the defensive moves possible and/or necessary to be taken in preparation for flight or retaliation of an unlawful move against us by anybody, foreign or domestic, then and only then will your words be heeded by those making these laws that are trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If the unthinkable happens remember that there are less than a million of them and nearly 3 million of us. If only one in 20 stand and fight thats 15 million vs 1 million and I'll take those odds any day. Plan well and good luck.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said....
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:35:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote is much disputed as to precise wording, but it is no less applicable for the dispute:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither."
Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that Americans truly do deserve neither security nor liberty.
Also, for your reading pleasure, may I recommend Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here". Or George Orwell's "1984". And keep in mind, we now have the technology to implement Big Brogher, with no effort at all. Hell, we're already on the way, with phone taps of civilians not suspected of any crime, monitoring of internet traffic and emails, et cetera.
It Can't Happen Here at Wikipedia
Complete text of the novel at Project Gutenberg
Review of It Can't Happen Here
lord garth.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:36:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People across the world ask me why the American people will not do anything to stop this..
There is a reason why,, laws like this are barely covered in the controlled US press. And if they are covered, they are "to stop terrorism, and they apply to somebody else."
And,, we all know they apply to us, but even thought the laws are in effect, the state will not immediately enforce them. ......yet !
Then, they will enforce the laws to see how the people will react.
If the people react , they will back off..Oops ! Sorry !
Then later, they will do it again,, until we are used to the new laws.. and few people object .
Those people will be labled "lone wierdoos".
Result:
The Law successfully passes, and it is successfully enfirced.
The American people,, are a
Frog,, boiling slowly in a pot.
ilyich
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:44:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A frog will die if placed in boiling water (obviously), but frogs will leap out of boiling water, so instead you slowly raise the water temperature by a fraction of a degree a day until the frog is dead. He didn't even see it coming.
These laws are only part of the problem, it was a long slow drive to where we are now, begining I think with the repeal of the "fairness doctrine" which required broadcasters to allow for all points of view. With the fairness doctrine out of the way idealogues like Rush Limbaugh were free to interpret the facts to the liking of their side of the aisle, and convince millions of Americans that this version of the story was the true one: "We are winning in Iraq!" despite all empirical evidence. America has gotten partisan to the point that you can choose which news broadcast fits your view, congressmen cannot cross party lines without incurring the wrath of their party leaders, and one side calls the other side "traitors" perhaps as a precurser to rounding them up. If you think the US is only torturing and holding "terrorists", fine, but what proof do you have either way? Nobody knows for sure WHO'S incarcerated in the secret prisons, so how do you know only the guilty are imprisoned? This is a great leap of faith, and America was founded on the idea that the people shouldn't put too much trust in their leaders, otherwise we would have elected kings and not short-term caretakers.
There are a surprisingly large number of people commenting here who defend the law and/or Bush. Would you defend this law if it were President Hillary Clinton signing it? Considering all the bile spewed at the Clintons over the years, you should be very afraid if a President Hillary were suddenly to have this power, and if it's not good for Hillary to have it, it's not good for Bush to have it either.
ilyich
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:49:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note: I have been pondering what Rove's "October Surprise" might turn out to be. This law makes it possible that a "terrorist act" on or around Election Day might cause the Pres. to declare martial law and suspend the election until things are "safe" again for democracy.
I wonder where Rove will have his minions create this "terrorist act"?
You think I'm paranoid? Well relax, I'm half-joking (but only 'half'). Certainly I hope I'm wrong on that count, but it's an interesting thing to contemplate.
tories
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:53:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
remember most of the people of the revolution were not involved in the war and a great many were tories,supporters of the crown.Like those that confess support of what Bush is doing.Most Americans are unaware or just do not care that we have financed our lifestyles through war and economic predation of other nations natural resources-stealing. We will have to one day fight again for our freedoms and the Tories will be there to complain, and after we win to then enjoy the fruits of liberty just like their fore fathers.To those who think Bush is right get the hell out of America and set up your dictatorship in the ant arctic.
Read H.R. 5122--323 sec. 1075
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 00:38:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president may _only_ employ armed forces under situations where the state fails to _protect_ and uphold the _rights_ of the citizens including _constitutional_ rights. There's nothing here that encourages the declaration of martial law. The whole purpose is to employ armed forces to _save_ lives _not_ control them.
This article couldn't even bother to get functional links, so here's one:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122
Blackfeather
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 01:39:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been put into place just in case Karl Rove can't manage to steal enough congressional elections to keep control of both houses. If the Diebolt voting machines and the mass disenfranchisement of blacks don't do the job this time there will be another black ops false flag attack and martial law. Democracy is dead in the U.S. Believing that elections will save us is whistling in the dark. Look to your guns, oh ye Sons of Liberty.
Adam Selene
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 01:48:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a tendency to hear of something terrible the Republicans are doing and assume the Democrats are opposed. Vice-versa, of course, in the case of something the Democrats do.
Better find out how your State's representatives voted. You might be surprised. We're in the midst of a war for oil, and the supplies of oil are depleting. The Democrats have mostly signed off on this stuff.
I'm planning on voting for Green Party.
willi
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 02:01:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geeze..... Don't blame this one on me. I voted Libertaian.
Freedom of Speech and you, by a former R
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 03:41:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking back on the ways life has evolved, in these United States, I am often appalled at the importance we place on some small things, such as nudity and language, and the shocking and utter lack of import some people deem to place on other, shall we call them miniscule issues like lying, cheating, stealing, and torture, like our President has been caught doing. Oh, but wait, the torture thing is ok, now, it's been made all right by a law recently signed.
Now, you may wonder what this has to do with the 1st amendment. Why, simply, if we didn't have it, it'd probably be illegal of me to make such a criticism of our Presidential Crook, or any of the other congressional crooks who not only let him get away with all that he's been caught doing, but fully support him while stuffing their own pockets. I bring this up in response to a ill-informed and un-educated note, earlier, talking about 3 of the amendments to the bill of rights; the first, about it's 'abuse', which, I assume, he either means how people shouldn't be allowed to express their point of view _or_ how people use scatological language(that's curse words) in day to day usage. I'm fairly certain he didn't mean the parts about right to worship what religion you choose, though in our ever-increasing fundamentalist population in our officials that could well be too. His statement that the 4th amendment was a 'crock', which I believe was to mean the slang term 'crock of sh*t', to wit that we are not entitled to, nor do we have the right of privacy, is simply amazing, and the thought that the 2nd amendment, that we have the right to bear arms and use them, in times of need, even against our own government(as has been noted, time and again, that this is what the founding fathers meant) needs to be 'updated for todays world' is similarly amazing.
In the words of one of the foremost Republicans; "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness." and his statement on judges is also quite poignant, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis EST ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." He was also credited with saying "I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretense of governing, they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe and to the general prey of the rich on the poor." and, even more relevant to today's status with our silent press; "Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves! Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and alwa | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: |
| From: "Ronald" <rbleier@igc.org>
To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
Subject: Worse times coming soon: K. Nimmo +F.Morales -Martial Law Act 2007
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:03:28 -0500
Once again, Kurt Nimmo puts it all together, here on Bush’s stealth signing of a bill making it easier for him to declare martial law. In connection with a similar situation in the Nixon administration, Nimmo quotes Howard J. Ruff:
“The only thing standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it”
Nimmo points out that we know all too well about Bush’s lack of good character.
I would only emphasize that this pre and soon to be post election period -- the holidays coming up and the new (once again) Republican Congress installed in January -- is likely to be our last quiet time until the 2008 election season -- if elections are on the table then.
One might think that with all the disaffection even from Republican-Neocons (try Googling: Perle regrets Iraq war), more foreign adventures like an attack against Iran might be foreclosed. However, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove are men of steely determination not to say vicious monsters (as they will no doubt demonstrate in ways we haven't yet seen), and they will push forward on their endless war agenda if at all possible.
Our only hope and it is fading fast is that the media will wake up to the upcoming stolen elections and raise a hue and cry that will keep the clique on the defensive.
--Ronald
www.bleiersblog.blolgspot.com
http://desip.igc.org
Kurt Nimmo wrote:
Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007
Saturday October 28th 2006, 9:44 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=631
On October 17, with little fanfare, the unitary decider signed H.R.5122, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. “The act provides $462.8 billion in budget authority for the department. Senate and House conferees added the $70 billion defense supplemental budget request to the act, so overall, the act authorizes $532.8 billion for fiscal 2007,” explains Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service.
According to a press release from the office of Senator Patrick Leahy, however, the bill takes a “sizable step toward weakening states’ authority over their [National] Guard units, according to the congressional leaders who are leading the fight for Guard empowerment.” Leahey and senator Kit Bond, a Montana Republican, “said the conference agreement is expected to include a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies. The provision is opposed by the National Governors Association and by key leaders in both the House and Senate.”
Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest and activist in New York City, writes that the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 actually encourages the establishment of martial law “by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.”
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bush demanded Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco yield to him the command over any National Guard troops sent to the area. “Bush wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed him to take control over all armed forces deployed, including Louisiana’s National Guard troops. But under the terms of the act, he had to get the assent of the legislature or the governor of the state. The legislature was not in session and Blanco refused,” writes Deirdre Griswold. As of September 11, 2005, Griswold notes, citing the Los Angeles Times, “Bush has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, but his administration is still discussing how to make it easier for the federal government to override local authorities in the future.”
Leaning on Blanco was considered politically sensitive. “Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” an anonymous senior administration official told the New York Times on September 8, 2005. Blanco “rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general—but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard,” the New York Times adds.
Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007 modifies the Insurrection Act and deals yet another blow to the Posse Comitatus Act. “Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, ‘Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,’” explains Morales. “Section 333, ‘Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law’ states that ‘the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (’refuse’ or ‘fail’ in) maintaining public order, ‘in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.’”
For the current President, “enforcement of the laws to restore public order” means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against “disorderly” citizenry—protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called “illegal aliens,” “potential terrorists” and other “undesirables” for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That’s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency” and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
Back in January, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers at undisclosed locations in the United States. As usual, the New York Times either missed over glossed over the significance of this development, characterizing it instead as a waste of taxpayer money. Peter Dale Scott, however, hit the nail right on the head. “For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North’s controversial Rex-84 ‘readiness exercise’ in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary ‘refugees,’ in the context of ‘uncontrolled population movements’ over the Mexican border into the United States. North’s activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.”
As Scott notes, plans for detention camps are nothing new, and indeed “have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for ’suspension of the Constitution’ and ‘declaration of martial law.’ The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida’s deputy, John Brinkerhoff.”
Brinkerhoff told PBS: “The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war.”
Giuffrida was the Reagan administration’s first director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from 1981 to 1985 and was the head of then-Governor Reagan’s California Specialized Training Institute, a National Guard school. In “1970 he had written a paper for the Army War College in which he called for martial law in case of a national uprising by black militants. Among his ideas were ‘assembly centers or relocation camps’ for at least 21 million ‘American Negroes,’” writes Sam Smith. “During 1968 and 1972, Reagan ran a series of war games in California called Cable Splicer, which involved the Guard, state and local police, and the US Sixth Army. Details of this operation were reported in 1975 in a story by Ron Ridenour of the New Times, an Arizona alternative paper, and later exhumed by Dave Lindorff in the Village Voice…. Cable Splicer, it turned out, was a training exercise for martial law. The man in charge was none other than Edwin Meese, then Reagan’s executive secretary. At one point, Meese told the Cable Splicer combatants: This is an operation, this is an exercise, this is an objective which is going forward because in the long run … it is the only way that will be able to prevail [against anti-war protests.]”
In response to Richard Nixon’s October 30, 1969, issuance of Executive Order 11490, “Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies,” which consolidated some 21 operative Executive Orders and two Defense Mobilization Orders issued between 1951 and 1966 on a variety of emergency preparedness matters, Howard J. Ruff noted: “The only thing standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it” (see Diana Reynolds, Civil Security Planning).
Not only is Bush’s lack of “good character” obvious, he also considers himself our unitary decider with the power to ignore over 750 laws. “Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ‘whistle-blower’ protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research,” the Boston Globe reported in April.
“From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced signing statements containing fewer than 600 challenges to the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George W. Bush (Bush II) has produced more than 800,” explains the American Bar Association Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
“It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president’s polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes,” concludes Morales. “And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.”
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws! of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total val! ue of $3 85 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequent! ly, it w ill take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormo! us". "Th ere is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the ! Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
_________________________________________________
— The whole world will rejoice when the Empire falls.
- Judah Ben-Hur (played by Charlton Heston), in 1959 classic movie "Ben-Hur"
— Traditional rulers, institutions, and ways of life have crumbled under the fatal impact of American wealth and power but they have not been replaced by new institutions and new ways of life, nor has their breakdown ushered in an era of democracy and development.
- William F. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
| NOVEMBER 3, 2006
2:45 PM
Mahdis Keshavarz, Riptide Communications, 212.260.5000
Center for Constitutional Rights Argues to Court That Military Commissions Act is Unconstitutional
NEW YORK - November 3 - The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) joined attorneys in filing a brief yesterday in Al Odah v. United States of America, together with Boumediene v. Bush the two cases representing men held at Guantánamo Bay that have reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The briefs were the first written arguments to challenge the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in court and argue that either the retroactive suspension of the detainees' right of habeas corpus does not apply to pending cases, or that it is flatly unconstitutional. CCR represents Australian citizen David Hicks, one of the petitioners in Al Odah, as well as hundreds of other detainees at the island prison and coordinates their representation by hundreds of pro bono attorneys.
The brief states: "The Court should promptly affirm [the Lower Court's] denial of the Government's motion to dismiss these cases and, at long last, allow the district court to decide 'the merits of the petitioners' claims' as mandated by the Supreme Court" in CCR's landmark victory Rasul v. Bush. The brief goes on to argue that the Suspension Clause of the Constitution-which states that "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless. cases of rebellion or invasion. require it"- bars Congress from suspending that right, except under very particular circumstances.
"This is the first opportunity we have had to challenge the constitutionality of the MCA in court," said CCR senior attorney Barbara Olshansky, "and the Constitution is quite explicit on this point: No rebellion, no invasion, no suspension. It's that simple. We at CCR are confident that the court will find in favor of our clients, and in favor of the Constitution."
The government must now file a response to the brief, which is due by November 13. The written briefs will then be followed by oral arguments, on a date to be determined by the court. Until the court issues its decision, all pending habeas corpus cases will not move forward.
CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the hundreds of men detained at Guantánamo Bay have the right to their day in court. President Bush and the Congress have done their best to delay justice for these men; now the courts must insure that justice is not denied." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books |
| Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"
Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before it is too late
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, November 13, 2006
Re-elected Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul joined Alex Jones on air last week to discuss the fallout of the midterm elections and what he sees transpiring over the next two years. He ended by ominously warning that if something is not done soon to overturn legislation such as the Military Commissions act, the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities.
Beginning with the positives to come out of the election, Ron Paul stressed that it has provided an important indication to the rest of the world that the people of America are unhappy with the usurpers that have seized control of their government and are trying to initiate change. The Congressman was quick to point out that this may not be carried into policy however:
"Not a whole lot will change because the leadership on the Democratic side, even if they had their way, don't have a different foreign policy. They have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy in the middle east, and they are not about to back away from that... They are willing to criticize the policy but only as a means to get power."
As we have seen over the past week, leading Democrats are all towing the party line, unreservedly dismissing any notion of the possibility of impeaching the President over Iraq.
The Congressman also stated that monetary policy will stay the same, which can only mean bad news for the American economy.
" They all believe in the federal reserve, they are not going to get rid of the IRS and the income tax. I think the dollar is going to keep sliding, which means prices are going to rise, when currencies self destruct, the end goes quickly. There are no signs that there is anything being done in Washington to correct the problem. Spending is going to continue and probably going to get worse, the deficits are going to stay high if foreign policy is not going to change."
The Congressman agreed that the elite globalists within the US government may not care about this too much because it means they can blow out the economy and then come back and buy it up very cheaply. These Internationalists care not about preserving and protecting American sovereignty when there is a quick buck to be made.
"That's also part of the foreign policy to be in position to hold onto natural resources, that's one of the major reasons why we're in the middle east, so yes if there is a financial crisis, they're going to have the guns, and they have control of the natural resources... It's not a good scenario, because what usually happens when you wipe out a currency is that you wipe out the middle class, and we already see this happening. The standard of living is going down." Paul asserted.
Ron Paul's comments echo those of Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who two weeks ago predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no," and also drew ominous parallels to the development of the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.
What real Conservatism there was left in the House, to block such moves, as well as Bush's amnesty program for illegals, is gone. With Pelosi at the helm Ron Paul sees it as a forgone conclusion that such policies will sail through.
"I think that's right, although I complain about the two parties being exactly alike, I would say on this amnesty issue and what's happened with the election, there probably was a difference between the two. It is more likely with the Democrats in charge, and Judiciary and the other major committees, and with the President not really fighting for our national borders, he's always argued for some type of worker program, yes I think there's a much greater danger that that is going to be coming in the next session."
Commenting on strategies to defeat the North American Union, the Congressman urged a continuance of educating people on the real issues and reaching more and more Americans who care about preserving their national sovereignty:
"You have to keep doing what you are doing, you are reaching a lot of people, and they have to get to their members of congress, and in many ways the current House has been pretty good with this. With the new House we don't know exactly what is going to happen, but I had something very encouraging come to my attention just this week. I had a call from a young lady that won in Kansas as a Democrat, and in her literature she put my whole article on the NAFTA super corridor in there... She is not going to vote with Nancy Pelosi."
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Congressman spoke on the issue of going about demanding a repeal of freedom crushing legislation such as the Patriot act and the Military Commissions act and the Defense Authorization Act which essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus.
"We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot better than the Congress, because we've given the President everything he's asked for and the President has been begging for all this authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the people wake up and say they don't like this... sometimes the people wake up to late. Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."
Take Ron Paul's suggestion up and contact your new or re-elected members and demand a move to repeal legislation paving the way for fascist government control in America today.
Additional at following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2006/11/14/american-concentration-camps-on-the-books.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
| TWO ACTS OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY!
http://stopthenorth americanunion. com/the_F_ word_files/ image002. jpg
TWO ACTS OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY!
By Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
December 7, 2006
On October 17, 2006, 'a date which will live in infamy' . . . there were two acts of tyranny committed. The first was a public signing of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare you an 'enemy combatant' and end your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment.
The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony, in which the president signed into law the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007' which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act. The NDAA will allow the president to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
About The Military Commissions Act of 2006 . . .
"A writ of habeas corpus which is Latin for 'you have the body' [as proof] is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody."(1)
"The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is 'the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action'."(1)
Expressing the pessimist's view was law professor Jonathan Turley who wrote: "The Congress just gave the president despotic powers and you could hear a yawn across the country [. . . ] People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon."(2)
Turley also said that: "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."(3)
You can watch this MSNBC video where Keith Olbermann and guest Jonathon Turley, Constitutional Law professor at George Washington University discuss the Military Commissions Act here.
About the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 . . .
The NDAA essentially eliminated the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act so that the president can declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
"The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact."(4)
"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States . The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions. "(4)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image006. jpg
The PRIVATE Signing of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007
What 'Rights' Have Been Taken From You?
"On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, . . . [whereby] "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading."(5)
As far as an American citizen is concerned the definition of the term 'unlawful enemy combatant' has ominous import for them. The law states: "(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."(6)
"Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word 'person' rather than 'alien'."(5)
'The Military Commissions Act of 2006' is a violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S.Constitution which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Is there an invasion? Yes! Our country has been invaded by 30 million illegal aliens. Does the president or our Congress intend to do anything about the invasion? No!
Ominously, the full text of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' was published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The fact that the CFR published the 'Act' would appear to be prima facie evidence of the Shadow Government's support for its genesis!(6)
The Center for Constitutional Rights commented that the: "Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged ‘enemy combatants,’ never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?”(7)
Sadly, the American Forces Press Service, propagandized the signing by utilizing the most common form of deception . . . omission. Read how they announced the signing but uttered not one peep about the potentially devastating future it has unleashed.(8)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image007. jpg
Senator John Warner
Martial Law Now Stalks America . . .
On October 17, 2006, "Public Law 109-364, or the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007' (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a 'public emergency' and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'.”(5)
What the National Defense Authorization Act does is end the Posse Comitatus Act of 1787. Posse Comitatus is Latin for 'power of the country.' It WAS a "law, [that] was championed by far-sighted Southern lawmakers in 1878. They had experienced a fifteen year military occupation by the US Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. They understood the heel of a jackboot."(9)
"In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines from participating in arrest, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act."(9)
All these new tyrannical laws have been created obsessively to combat the amorphous concept of 'fighting terrorism' . . . an undefined and ever present boogey man. So not only is the military now permitted to be used around the country, the president can take over the National Guard and the Coast Guard too. It can happen under ANY pretext, at which time the president will become the dictator-in- chief.
According to Gen. Tommy Franks, martial law will replace the Constitution after the next terror attack. In an interview with Cigar Aficionado he said: “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”(10)
Written Dissent to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007:
No matter your opinion of Cynthia McKinney, her 26 page dissent of the NDAA of 2007 is very compelling and highlights the damage and erosion, of tasks and performance, taking place between the police and the military in direct contradiction of our Constitution. The following excerpt is from the section concerning the issue of Posse Comitatus [pp. 30-31 .pdf (pp. 528-529)] which can be found here: (11)
This Authorization should also have reaffirmed the principle of Posse Comitatus for military forces, police and contracted security or combat forces. This Constitutional principle creates a bright line between military and police functions.
In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001 , the Bush administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of citizens in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus Act of 1867 [sic - i.e.,1878], which re-established the Constitutional principle and practice of separating military and police functions in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
The experience of the founding fathers with the British model that combined the functions was enough to cause them to set that division sharply in administrative powers and civilian command of the military.
The principles began to be eroded in the period following the end of the Civil War, and the effective occupation of areas of the south by federal troops who were holding military tribunals, carrying out executions of citizens and usurping local police and judicial control. Their excesses came to the attention of the post-war Congress and they passed the Posse Comitatus Act to forbid the military being used to enforce laws.
Further erosion followed the end of the Vietnam War, when police departments were increasingly militarized in training and equipment as well as employing a large number of returning war veterans. SWAT teams were created, a clearly militarized police function, getting training on military bases with advanced weapons.
When President George H.W. Bush came into office in the 1980s, his programs made increased use of military troops and equipment in the war against drugs, supporting police and collecting intelligence in regard to civilian crimes. Joint Military Task Forces were created that combined DoD, FBI, SWAT, ATF and local police in sieges at Wounded Knee, Waco, Texas and against MOVE in Philadelphia, using tanks and military explosives.
President Bush has ample authority under provisions of existing laws on disaster response to mobilize and command any and all federal assets, including military forces. State directed National Guard units have always worked in conjunction with federal troops without being put under federal control themselves. Both National Guard and regular military forces are authorized under federal and state laws to use force to protect lives, property and public safety during a declared emergency. Police functions have been wisely left to local police and state National Guard forces, except when the situation was so dire they could not function.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image008. jpg
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image009. jpg
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image010. jpg
Executive Orders and PDDs Say How They Will Do It!
Once martial law is invoked, then the Executive Orders (EOs) concerned with national security or defense issues are then ALSO invoked. These were previously known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they were renamed 'Presidential Decision Directives' commonly known as PDDs.
For example PDD 63, issued in 1998 that speaks to protecting America 's critical infrastructure "including telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, and transportation-that supports the U.S. economy, government, and military."(12)
"The aim of PDD 63 was to introduce an improved information system infrastructure that is secure and interconnected by the year 2003, and to significantly increase security to government systems by the year 2000. PDD 63 designed a new configuration to protect the country's critical infrastructure. Some of the components are as follows:
· A national coordinator to handle critical infrastructure, as well as foreign terrorism and domestic mass destruction;
· The National Infrastructure Protection Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation to bring together representatives from various agencies for information sharing and collaboration;
· Information Sharing and Analysis Center to be set up by the private sector in cooperation with the government;
· A National Infrastructure Assurance Council made up of private sector leaders and state/local officials to provide advice for a national plan; . . ."
Why and who will be those from the 'private sector' running our government in a time of crisis. Will it be those international bankers and industrialists? It gives no parameters. It is concerning that they could ALL be the very people who want a One World Monopoly and the creation of the North American Union. What better, quick and efficient way to enforce their plans than to have them spring forward using a domestic tragedy like 9/11. But then that has always been their game plan.
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power."
Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders."
But Today's Executive Orders Go FAR Beyond Those Rules As These Quotes Attest . . .
"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998 (13)
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999 (13)
Read over the following Executive Orders so you can understand what TOTAL, COMPLETE, and DICTATORIAL POWER these orders will invoke. Go here to search for the actual text for the Executive Orders as well at the current disposition of those Executive Orders: (14)
Go to that Federal Register and check out the following Executive Orders: 13010, 13130, 13228, 13231, 13234, 14284, 13284, 13286 (transfers control of 12919 to DHS - Dept. of Homeland Security).
Pay Particular Attention to Executive Order 12919 . . .
The president of the United States , with the help of federal agencies, will have control over the following, as annotated by Paula Demers in 1996: (15)
(a) All transportation, "regardless of ownership." This means that if they need your car, they’ve got it. They will control all public transportation also.
(b) All forms of energy, including "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured) , electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)." This means the federal government will have complete control over who will have power (electricity, etc.) and who won’t. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us at their discretion.
(c) All farm equipment. Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources." They did this in Russia . The farmers worked for the government.
(d) All fertilizer. This means that any product, or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements--nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--will be able to be confiscated by the government. The reason they have this combination is because it includes anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it.
(e) All food resources. ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals...." This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores."
That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "UN World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the UN 4th World Conference on Women in September, 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize." [Henry Kissinger has infamously said: 'Food can be used as a weapon!']
(f) All food resource facilities. This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage (including cold food storage)." They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed." In other words, they will control anything that has to do with food.
(j) All health resources. This means EVERYTHING. They will have control over all "materials, facilities, health supplies, and equipment (including pharmaceutical, blood collecting and dispensing supplies, biological, surgical textiles, and emergency surgical instruments and supplies)." They will be able to come into your home and take your medicines.
(k) All metals and minerals. [Think gold and silver confiscation]
(m) All water resources. ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States . All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements. " Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house.
Speaking of Water . . .
Did you know that some senators in the state of Washington were working to get a bill passed that would require you to obtain a permit in order to collect rainwater on you own property? Who were the sponsors of such an absurdity? Why they included a Rockefeller of course, who else? What did Senator Dick Boxlightner have to say about such insanity: "What's next, a permit for collecting strawberries off plants in your garden?" Little does Senator Boxlightner know that's EXACTLY where they are heading.(16)
The Monopolists Want to Control ALL Seed Production . . .
Huge monolithic corporations like Monsanto are viciously going after farmers whose crops became genetically modified when the WIND cross-pollinated their crops with the PATENTED (monopolized) crops planted by Monsanto. Companies like Monsanto have created, and then deliberately left unidentified, where their test plots of patented crops are growing all across America . That way they can know where and who you are, but you cannot protect yourself from them until they claim your crop is contaminated with their patented technology and sue you for illegally using their patented materials. In fact, Monsanto has sued so many farmers that there is now a national hotline (1-888-FARMHLP) set up to assist them.
Monsanto employees will walk right onto your land without your permission and take samples of your crops off to their labs for investigation, then they'll haul you into court for stealing and not paying for their genetically modified products. You will be deliberately ruined financially AND psychologically. Your farms that have been in your family for generations will be taken from your by extortion and threat of a mega-lawsuit OR when they win their court suit against you. In the legal process they can ruin you financially or psychologically before you ever get your day in court. It's happening all across America and Canada . Get the picture? Educate yourself!
If you disbelieve such claims . . . you should watch all the YouTube and Google videos on genetically modified seeds, in particular the ones about Percy Schmeiser a Canadian farmer. Or, you can purchase the DVD by Deborah Koons Garcia titled: The Future of Food: There's a revolution happening . . . Educate yourself about how the One World Monopolists are already working hard to take over ALL seed production via monopolistic patents.
FYI . . . The Monopolists ALREADY Control the Seed Production in Iraq
Before the U.S. invasion, agriculture in Iraq was the product of centuries of culling and refining heirloom seed collections so that the best seeds suited for a given location, weather, soil and water source were saved and used. The war in Iraq conveniently destroyed the country's seed industry, putting the country's domestic food supply at risk.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image011. jpg
L. Paul Bremer, III; aka Lewis Paul Bremer; aka Jerry Bremer
May 11, 2003 - June 28, 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq
The solution to the seed problem was solved by U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer to Iraq when he delivered some 100 written orders for governing Iraq . As Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Bremer issued the following CPA Order #81 about Iraqi seed production:
"Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and under the laws and usages of war, and consistent with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1483 and 1511 (2003) . . .
Recognizing that companies, lenders and entrepreneurs require a fair, efficient, and predictable environment for protection of their intellectual property, [and] Noting that several provisions of the current Iraqi Patent and Industrial Design Law and related legislation does not meet current internationally- recognized standards of protection,
Recognizing the demonstrated interest of the Iraqi Governing Council for Iraq to become a full member in the international trading system, known as the World Trade Organization [WTO], and the desirability of adopting modern intellectual property standards,
Acting in a manner consistent with the Report of the Secretary General to the Security Council of July 17, 2003, concerning the need for the development of Iraq and its transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free market economy characterized by sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms to give it effect, . . ."(17)
"The important information about Iraqi Order 81 is that it was designed to have a major impact on the way farming is done in Iraq . This order prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the methods of agriculture that they have used for centuries. The practice of saving seeds from one year to the next is now illegal in Iraq. Order 81 wages war on Iraqi farmers. They have lost the freedom to choose their own methods of agriculture. The legalese in which the orders are written creates confusion about their exact meaning, but the desired result is obvious. Order 81 prohibits the farmers from using their own seeds, on their own farms, to grow their own crops."(18)
"In the name of agricultural reconstruction this new law deprives Iraqi farmers of their inherent right, exercised for the past 10,000 years in the fertile Mesopotamian arc, to save and replant seeds. It enables the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow Chemical and other corporate giants that control the global seed trade."(19)
How will they enforce such a diabolical order? They will probably use 'Terminator Seed' technology to do so.
What Exactly ARE 'Terminator Seeds' You Ask?
To fully understand the truly 'dark side' of a monopoly, how about using "food as a weapon" as was once declared by Henry Kissinger. All food starts with seeds and there is now a patented technology invented by a company called Delta & Pine Land, which is about to be acquired by Monsanto, because they engineered a 'Terminator' seed which cannot be used for the next year's crop because it automatically self-destructs at the end of the growing season. How sick is that?
In a well researched and documented story you will find a litany of twisted devious financial and political connections concluding with three paragraphs that state: "The key scientific member of the Delta & Pine Land board since 1993 has been Dr. Nam-Hai Chua. Chua, 62, is also head of the Rockefeller University Plant Molecular Biology Laboratory in New York, and has been for over 25 years. The labs are at the heart of the Rockefeller tax-exempt Foundation’s decades-long support which has spent more than $100 million of its own research grant funding to create their Gene Revolution." Chua heads a laboratory staff of twenty-one predominately Asian workers.(20)(21)(22)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image013. jpg
Rockefeller University - NY
Until 1995, Chua was also a scientific consultant to Monsanto Corporation, as well as to DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Chua is at the heart of Rockefeller’s Gene Revolution. And, clearly, Delta & Pine Land and their research on Terminator [seed] have been in the center of that work."(20)(21)
How Did America Become What it is Today?
If you think about it . . . by sending our manufacturing base to Mexico or off-shoring to other foreign countries, using H-1B visas and others to insource workers, and while at the same time out-sourcing jobs. By doing so, the One World Monopolists (OWM) have FORCED America into becoming global. All has been done in the name of 'profits' when in the past we were self-contained and produced all we needed for ourselves and exported our excess around the world. Now we are dependent on countries like Communist China , etc., to supply stores like Wal-mart with nearly all its merchandise. Thus we have become a de facto global economy without our consent and strident calls for it to stop. They are killing America slowly but surely.
In fact . . . you will find that the cabal working towards the NAU has gone one step further and created non-profit foundations to develop many of the road and infrastructure projects that are planned under NAFTA 'plus' called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This means that NO TAXES will enter the coffers of America 's government till. Even worse . . . you will find that they are using all manner of federal tax dollars to fund some of the 'non-profit' projects that are already in place. Clever by half, wouldn't you say. Take taxpayer dollars, make money but pay no taxes in return, while America, by default, becomes the North American Union.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image014. jpg
Are You Angry Yet? Have You Any Fear Yet? If Not . . . Read On . . .
"EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a 'new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis'."(23)(24)
The Escalating Role of the Military . . .
"The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders.”(4)
"In other words, the law facilitates the 'transfer' of the newest in so-called 'crowd control' technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier “technology transfer” agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime."(4)(25)
Are You a Border Crosser Listed in the Automated Targeting System (ATS)?
"Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders since 2002 have been assessed by the Homeland Security Department's computerized Automated Targeting System, or ATS . . . [using an] unannounced assignment of terrorism risk assessments to American international travelers by a computerized system managed from an unmarked, two-story brick building in Northern Virginia."(26)
"The travelers [you] are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years. Some or all data in the system can be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring, contracting and licensing decisions. Courts and even some private contractors can obtain some of the data under certain circumstances. "(26)
"It is simply incredible that the Bush administration is willing to share this sensitive information with foreign governments and even private employers, while refusing to allow U.S. citizens to see or challenge their own terror scores," Leahy said. This system 'highlights the danger of government use of technology to conduct widespread surveillance of our daily lives without proper safeguards for privacy'."(26)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image019. jpg
Secretary of the Air Force - Michael Wynne
Some Examples of Military Technology and Tactics Already Being Used On YOU!
According to Sec'y of the Air Force Michael Wynne: "Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield . . . The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne."(27)
What 'others' does he mean? We American citizens? Certainly not the news media because they are in league with the monopolists!
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."(27)
Oh, so now we know . . . he is not concerned with complaints from 'We the People' . . . only those in the 'world press.'
Lastly . . . "The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved."(27)
That's a backhanded admission that people ARE injured by use of 'non-lethal' weapons. Don't you wonder if they will do a five year study to determine if there are any long term effects to being microwaved? That's probably not in their plans. They could care less about Americans. If injury does result in future medical problems they can do what they have always done and deny there was any 'cause and effect' as in 'Agent Orange' or depleted uranium (DU). Their only concern is about being 'vilified in the world press'. Comforting isn't it?
Then there was the school safety drill . . .
In Wyoming , Michigan there was a 'school safety drill' that included police officers in riot gear with weapons.
"Students, who were unaware police were conducting a drill, were taken from the classroom into the halls, patted down by officers and asked what they had in their pockets . . . Officers wore protective gear, including vests and helmets, and carried rifles that were unloaded and marked with colored tape to indicate they were not live weapons . . . "(28)
Diana Silva, a parent of an eighth-grade student, said the drill went too far. "My child was with his face to the wall in the hallway of the high school . . . I certainly don't want anything like this happening to my child."(28)
"Principal David Britten said students weren't told ahead of time to make the drill as realistic as possible. Teachers were informed moments before it took place, he said. "I think this is the best way to do it," [School Principal] Britten said. "We're not looking to scare anyone, but we want a sense of urgency."(28)
"But Wyoming Police Chief James Carmody said his officers were not aware students and parents were not told. He said his department will mandate that parents be notified ahead of time in the future."(28)
Just more practice done on the unsuspecting public. Children, some of whom "were so scared, they just about wet their pants . . . "(28)
Surprise . . . the Military was Ready Even BEFORE the NDAA Bill Was Signed . . .
In "April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States . Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this 'the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946'."(29)
"The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for 'homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).... He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters'."(29)
Take, for instance . . . Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005. According to the Washington Post: "White House senior adviser Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, that she should explore legal options to impose martial law 'or as close as we can get'. The White House tried vigorously, but ultimately failed, to compel Gov. Blanco to yield control of the state National Guard."(29)
Even then the Bush administration was pushing for martial law. Some have said that FEMA's spectacular failure to respond to Katrina resulted from the White House policy to cut back FEMA and head the department with someone totally unqualified for the job was done in order to strengthen the proposal and funding for a military response to disasters. Thus the multi-million funding for detention facilities will give substance and support for expanding NORTHCOM's ability to respond to any domestic disorders.
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image020. jpg
The New York Times Chimes in with Their Propaganda:
"As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis."(30)
"To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. "(30)
You did notice that it was Ms. Blanco and not Gov. Blanco whose title denotes the right to call out and control the National Guard of her state of Louisiana ? Subtleties abound when propaganda is concerned.
The New York Times article go on to say: "At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, 'The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe'."(30)
Chertoff's announcement is actually calling for an end to the 'traditional model' of Posse Comitatus and 'creating a new model' by overriding the Insurrection Act. His propaganda has left unsaid the damage that will be inflicted by ending your centuries-old rights and protections. Once the 'new model' is law . . . THEN, too late, you will understand that your important Constitutional protections are gone forever.
Was FEMA Really Incompetent or Was It ALL About Promoting the Need For Martial Law?
Why was FEMA so late, ineffective and accused of dragging their feet, cutting communication lines used by local first responders, turning back truckloads of water and supplies as well as refusing to let volunteer local boat owners, of which there are many in that area of the country, go in and rescue people. You don't suppose FEMA's 'problems' were just a really opportune way to promote and get the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 signed, sealed and delivered?(31)
You can find a list of FEMA's blocking of relief efforts with clickable URLs to the source material here: (32)
There are many, including this author, who believe that the use of the National Guard to enter and confiscate the lawfully possessed weapons from homeowners in New Orleans after Katrina was simply a 'trial run' to discover how or IF the American citizens would react to such a blatant violation of their Constitutional rights!
You can watch the video of the National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans on the Stop the North Ameican Union 'Videos' webpage found here to see how they violated and infringed our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms." Or . . . you can purchase and donate to the NRA at the same time by purchasing their video Never Again! A Shocking Story of Gun Confiscation in America .
How did we arrive at this sorry state of affairs? There is a solid article written in 1996 titled Mission creep: the militarizing of America . Unfortunately, it is not referenced, but it will guide you through the maze of events that brought into being these outrageous rights-stealing new laws.(33)
Sadly . . . Carl Rove Got His Desired Martial Law!
As part of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the Pentagon is provided an additional $500 billion plus to enable the president to employ the "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies . . . [such as] interference with State and Federal law . . . the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (”refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”(4)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image021. jpg
Once Arrested for 'Insurrection' or 'Domestic Violence' Where Will You Be Incarcerated?
"There [are] over 800 prison camps in the United States , all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached." (23)
"The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons."(23)
"Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation."(23)
"The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks , Alaska . The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people."(23)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image022. jpg
Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide “temporary detention and processing capabilities” in January 2006.(34)
The Propaganda Is That They Are Being Built For Rounding Up Illegal Aliens . . .
It has been REPEATEDLY stated by government sources that it is not "practical or feasible" to deport millions of illegal aliens. However, our government apparently has plans to transport millions of Americans across the country and imprison them in concentration camps, or gulags or 'detention centers.' For what purpose or reason? For more details and locations see "FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders here, including a word of caution from a Canadian Lady who questions some of the Canadian locations because of weather conditions, not by sightings]: (23)(35)
If you live near any of those alleged FEMA camps, it is your civic DUTY as American citizens to go to the locations mentioned in the 'FEMA Concentration Camps' report and determine for yourself, and others, if the report is accurate or not. If you find that these locations are not as identified, then you MUST report that to the website and others. If they ARE as stated then further their knowledge base with photographs and any other evidence you may obtain.
"In September [2005], NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington . As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, 'Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control'."(29)
Still Don't Believe It's True? Then Read This . . . (36)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image024. gif
Another Surprise! . . . the SAME DAY that the John Warner NDAA was signed the Army was ready:
U.S. Army North, the Army’s newest service component command reached full operational capability Monday, which means that it is fully manned, equipped and ready to assume its mission.
As part of Army transformation, USARNORTH was formed to become the dedicated Army service component command to Northern Command, the unified command responsible for defending the homeland and coordinating defense support of civil authorities.
Located at Fort Sam Houston , Texas , USARNORTH achieved initial operating capability in September 2005, and is responsible for specific missions, including:
• Execute homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions.
• Provide training and readiness oversight of certified weapons of mass destruction—[ for] civil support teams.
• Conduct the Army-to-Army portion of the theater cooperation mission with Canada and Mexico .
• Coordinate the activities of defense coordinating officers and their elements assigned in each Federal Emergency Management Agency region.
• Organize up to two task forces that, with augmentation, can become joint task forces and deploy within the operational area to command and control Department of Defense forces responding to homeland defense or civil support operations.
For the past 12 months, USARNORTH has been building its organization, readiness and mission capability. USARNORTH officially assumed the Army component command duties from Forces Command on Oct. 1.(37)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image025. jpg
And . . . Where Will the Army Practice its Defense of the Homeland?
After all the uproar over the nationwide military base closings under BRAC, the "U.S. Army is eyeing another MILLION ACRES of southeastern Colorado ranch and croplands for additional training grounds for its modernized Army, and landowners who don't want to lose their homesteads could be facing condemnation proceedings. . . The protest group said Las Animas County likely will be the most impacted by an army site expansion, and there are 567 farms and ranches with crop sales of $761,000 and livestock sales of more than $20 million that would be endangered."(38)
Those that are fighting to keep their land out of the clutches of the military-industrial complex have said: "Agriculture is one of the cornerstones of society, even though many people take it for granted, it is very much a national security issue. The United States is already dependent on foreign oil, what will happen if we become dependent on foreign countries for our food supplies as well? . . . We also hold firm to the belief that our national security relies as much on our efforts to produce food as it does on a good national defense, The group said entire towns would be removed from existence, 'except as maybe [those that are useful as] urban warfare training sites'."(38)
In a 'dodge' by the military's spokeswoman Karen Edge at the Fort Carson Army Base, it was stated that those concerns were premature. 'All we've done is identify a training land deficit,' . . . There currently is a moratorium on acquiring more land, so the Army will have to ask the Department of Defense for a waiver, and move forward from there.(38)
"Army officials said the base needs to have 'a dynamic, fully integrated battlefield environment' to train soldiers who are able to operation [sic] in smaller units and still control 'significantly greater battle space'." This quest for land is in addition to the 234,000 acres currently existing at Fort Carson. (38)
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/the_ F_word_files/ image026. jpg
Lastly, a peek into your future . . .
In the small town of Morristown , TN : "The khaki-clad state troopers hup-hupped into formation on opposite sides of the courthouse lawn, wearing riot gear and clutching batons. About 100 state and local officers stood on the square this summer, some carrying M-16 rifles. They were more than a match for an equal number of mostly middle-aged locals arriving for the anti-illegal immigration rally. It was one of the most confounding spectacles this little town of 25,000 had ever seen. The only way to step on the lawn between the rows of troopers was through a security checkpoint, surrendering anything that looked like it could be used as a weapon. Ted Mitchell and his flag never made it in."(39)
"'It's an American flag!' Mitchell sputtered. You can bring the flag into the rally, a police officer explained, but you have to leave your flag pole. Mitchell's face got redder. His yelling got louder. In an instant the 62-year-old man was scuffling with the police. They pushed him to the ground, cuffed him and carted him off in a police car."(39)
Just where will they take the future, perhaps MILLIONS of flag waving patriots like Ted Mitchell? Watch this video detailing the preparations for the coming gulags or as they are euphemistically known as, 'detention centers' here on the Stop the North American Union (NAU) website's 'Videos' webpage.
The Conclusion . . .
The goal of the One World Monopolists is to gain total and complete world domination. An determined oligarchy of monied elites who believe they are destined to rule and that you are destined to be ruled. They will answer to no one and run the world as they see fit.
According to Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University: "While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to go political and make society go to work for the monopolists-- under the name of the public good and the public interest."(40)
"Frederick C. Howe revealed the strategy of using government in a 1906 book, Confessions of a Monopolist: These are the rules of big business . . . Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics . . . "(40)
Are we moving from . . . Freedom to Fascism as the Aaron Russo's documentary video claims. You can watch his film which is archived on the Stop the North American Union 'Videos' webpage found here and judge for yourself!
The 'Shadow Government' working in plain sight, to create the North American Union using the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). They are well on their way to a One World Monopoly and they have begun their final mad dash to the finish line.
The oligarchs have become ever more arrogant and bold. They have concluded you are either asleep or brainwashed and propagandized into complacency. They are so close to complete conquest that they are now blatantly abusing our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws in more ways than you can imagine in your wildest of dreams.
If the One World Monopolists succeed . . . they will consign us all to a living hell on earth!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: All bracketed [ ] notations within the quotes, are added for clarification.
Note 2: All underlining, bolding, color and italics within the quotes and elsewhere, are done for emphasis.
Note 3: Melvin Sickler, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission: The two organizations that run the United States , http://www.prologne t.qc.ca/clyde/ cfr.html.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. lectlaw.com, habeas corpus: Defined and Explained, Accessed October 26, 2006 , lectlaw.com, http://www.lectlaw. com/def/h001. htm.
2. Doug Hornig, The Passing of Habeas Corpus, Accessed November 15, 2006 , caseyresearch. com, http://www.caseyres earch.com/ wwnk.php.
3. Robert Longley, Bush and Lincoln both Suspended Habeas Corpus, Accessed on November 7, 2006 , usgovinfo.about. com, http://usgovinfo. about.com/ od/rightsandfree doms/a/habeuscor pus.htm.
4. Frank Morales, Bush Moves Toward Martial Law, October 27, 2006 , rinf.com, http://www.rinf. com/columnists/ news/bush- moves-toward- martial-law.
5. Joe Wolverton II, J.D., Are YOU the Enemy?, October 30, 2006 , The New American, http://www.thenewam erican.com/ artman/publish/ article_4269. shtml.
6. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Military Commissions Act of 2006, Accessed November 14, 2006 , cfr.org, http://www.cfr. org/content/ publications/ attachments/ military% 20act.pdf.
7. Anup Shah, Military Commissions Act 2006 -- Unchecked Powers?, October 2, 2006 , zmag.org, http://www.zmag. org/content/ showarticle. cfm?ItemID= 11095.
8. Jim Garamone, President Signs 2007 Defense Authorization Act, October 17, 2006 , PressZoom.com- Global News Service, http://presszoom. com/story_ 119492.html.
9. Michael G. Leventhal, 1878 Military Law Gets New Attention, November 21, 2001 , dojgov.net, http://www.dojgov. net/posse_ comitatus_ act.htm.
10. John O. Edwards, Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack, November 21, 2003 , NewMax.com, http://www.newsmax. com/archives/ articles/ 2003/11/20/ 185048.shtml.
11. Cynthia A. McKinney, Dissenting Views in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, Accessed November 29, 2006 , .pdf pp. 12-36 (Document pp. 511-534), http://a257. g.akamaitech. net/7/257/ 2422/15may200615 14/www.gpoaccess .gov/serialset/ creports/ pdf/hr109- 452/views. pdf.
12. Regulations & Standards, US Laws and Executive Orders, PDD 63: Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures, emergency-managemen t.net, http://www.emergenc y-management. net/laws_ pdd63.htm.
13. Jeffrey C. Fox, What is an Executive Order?, Accessed August 7, 2006 , thisnation.com, http://www.thisnati on.com/question/ 040.html.
14. The Federal Register, Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index, Accessed December 5, 2006 , archives.gov, http://www.archives .gov/federal- register/ executive- orders/dispositi on.html.
15. Paula Demers, The Executive Order Above All Executive Orders, Accessed July 2, 2006 , proliberty.com, http://www.proliber ty.com/observer/ prt0397a. htm.
16. NewsWithViews, Permit Required To Collect Rainwarter In Washington State?, January 21, 2005 , newswithviews. com, http://www.newswith views.com/ NWVexclusive/ exclusive76. htm.
17. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 81, Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Inormation, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law, April 26, 2004 , CPA, http://www.export. gov/iraq/ pdf/cpa_order_ 81.pdf.
18. Rosemarie Jackowski, IRAQ: CPA Order 81 Is Even Worse Than Originally Reported, August 12, 2005 , corpwatch.org, http://www.corpwatc h.org/article. php?id=12547.
19. Michael Meacher, My sadness at the privatisation of Iraq , August 12, 2005 , http://www.timesonl ine.co.uk/ article/0, ,1072-1731547, 00.html.
20. F. William Engdahl, Monsanto Buys 'Terminator' Seeds Company, August 27, 2006 , Global Research, http://www.globalre search.ca/ index.php? context=viewArti cle&code=ENG20060827&articleId=3082.
21. Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D., Treason Abounds, Gov't Cabal Plots North American Unioin (NAU), September 4, 2006 , Updated November 4, 2006, StopTheNorthAmerica nUnion.com, http://www.StopTheN orthAmericanUnio n.com/TreasonAbo unds.html.
22. Rockefeller University , Members of the Laboratory of Plant Molecular Biology, Accessed December 4, 2006 , rockefeller. edu, http://www.rockefel ler.edu/research /labmembers. php?id=22&memberId=28.
23. Friends of Liberty , FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders, October 6, 2006 , sianews.com, http://www.sianews. com/modules. php?name= News&file=article&sid=1062.
24. Gerald R. Ford, Executive Order 11921: Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignment to Organization and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies, June 11, 1976 , fas.org, http://www.fas. org/irp/offdocs/ eo/eo-11921. htm.
25. Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection, National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
26. Michael J. Sniffen, U.S. Gov't Terror Ratings Draw Outrage, December 2, 2006 , military.com, http://www.military .com/NewsContent /0,13319, 119898,00. html.
27. Associated Press (AP), Air Force chief: Test Weapons on testy U.S. mobs, September 12, 2006 , The Seirra Times, http://www.sierrati mes.com/06/ 09/13/mobs. htm.
28. Associated Press, School Safety Drill Upsets Some Parents, October 28, 2006 , abcnews.go.com, http://abcnews. go.com/US/ wireStory? id=2613229&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds031 2.
29. Peter Dale Scott, Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps, February 6, 2006 , pacificnews. org, http://news. pacificnews. org/news/ view_article. html?article_ id=eed74d9d44c30 493706fe03f4c9b3 a77.
30. Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt, Thom Shanker, Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid, September 9, 2005, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes. com/2005/ 09/09/national/ nationalspecial/ 09military. html?ex=12839184 00&en=aa642c94881e7c01&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
31. Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, FEMA Deliberately Sabotaging Hurricane Relief Efforts, September 6, 2005 , prisonplanet. com, http://www.prisonpl anet.com/ articles/ september2005/ 060905femasabota ging.htm.
32. Rense.com, FEMA's Blocking Of Relief Efforts -- An Amazing List, September 8, 2005 , rense.com, http://www.rense. com/general67/ femwont.htm.
33. Sam Smith, Mission creep: the militarizing of America , March 1996, Progressive Review, http://prorev. com/mil.htm.
34. Katherine Hunt, KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M, January 24, 2006 , marketwatch. com, http://www.marketwa tch.com/News/ Story/Story. aspx?guid= %7B62C8724D- AE8A-4B5C- 94C7-70171315C0A 0%7D&dateid=38741. 5136277662- 858254656.
35. Canadian Lady, Re: FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders, October 6, 2006 , sianews.com, http://www.sianews. com/modules. php?name= News&file=comments&sid=1062&tid=150&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0.
36. What Really Happened, Concentration Camps in America: Are They For You?, Accessed August 2, 2006 , whatreallyhappened. com, http://www.whatreal lyhappened. com/concentratio n.html.
37. Staff report, U.S. Army North up and running, October 17, 2006 , armytimes.com, http://www.armytime s.com/story. php?f=1-292925- 2274936.php.
38. World Net Daily, Army eyes 1 million acres for warfare training; Landowners unwilling to sell could face condemnation proceedings, November 7, 2006 , WorldNetDaily. com, http://www.worldnet daily.com/ news/article. asp?ARTICLE_ ID=52819.
39. Kim Cobb, Our Town -- The Rally: More immigrant arrivals mean more fears in Appalachia , October 23, 2006 , Houston Chronicle.com, http://www.alipac. us/modules. php?name= Forums&file=viewtopic&t=44771.
40. William Blase, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the New World Order, 1995, conspiracyarchive. com, http://conspiracyar chive.com/ NWO/Council_ Foreign_Relation s.htm.
© Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D., All Rights Reserved
http://www.stopthen orthamericanunio n.com/Fear_ PF.html
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___ | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
