Paramilitary Police State & Private Prisons
James Madison, the author of our Constitution, warned in 1792, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” In today’s institutionalized collectivist society, Americans couldn’t survive without legal plunder, state compulsion, unrestrained spending, subsidies, bailouts, and living off their fellow citizens, which our “indefinite” government now provides for. - Kevin Eggers, Collectivism and the Fall of American Principles, January 27, 2010March 17, 2010
New American - As America travels the well-worn and brutal path earlier empires paved, it increasingly disdains the pretense of ruling “of, by and for the people.” And so the führer in the White House threatens to ram his impractical and deeply offensive plans for nationalizing medical insurance down our throats, regardless of how loudly we shriek “No!”
Meanwhile, Congress prepares to imprison indefinitely any “enemy belligerents” who object to the government’s whims. You might suppose that dictators controlling almost 309,000,000 subjects would be too busy to fuss with legal niceties. But no. A preoccupation with legislative permission characterizes tyrannies, perhaps because it protects those responsible from prosecution should justice resurrect one day. The Nazis are notorious for legalizing their plunder, kidnapping en masse, and murder.
No wonder, then, that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and nine co-sponsors have introduced legislation they might have cribbed from the Third Reich. “S.3081: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” supposedly “provide[s] for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States” — and, as the bill’s text repeatedly adds, its “coalition partners.”
Note that a new and ungrammatical cluster of nouns, “enemy belligerents,” has not only replaced but enlarged the numbers of the old, equally ungrammatical “enemy combatants” — and yes, combining this with the Feds’ penchant for smearing even their mildest critics as terrorists means they have us firmly in their sights. Note further that the bill’s “persons” and “individuals” now specifically includes citizens of the US [Sec. 5], and that the US military, known to have tortured Iraqis, Afghanis, and others, may “detain” and “interrogate” these victims indefinitely.
Hard to say which is more monstrous: McCain’s stupidity or his evil. He’s so proud of this abomination that he’s posted his “Statement” introducing it to the Senate on his website:
“This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans’ security at risk,” he says, apparently oblivious to the irony that empowering governments to destroy God-given, inalienable rights is precisely what puts Americans’ security at greatest risk.
No doubt unwittingly, McCain reveals the specious logic with which his legislation overturns the Constitution: “This bill would require unprivileged enemy belligerents suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a ‘high value detainee’ interagency team established by the President.”
With a succinct 38 words, in which no less than 5 nouns are once again contorted into adjectives, McCain eviscerates the ancient right of habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, and the right to an open trial. In place of the last, he substitutes judgment at the hands of appointed and very biased bureaucrats. If “experts” determine that you are “an unprivileged enemy belligerent” and if “the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency” agree, well, you are clearly and indeed a very bad guy. Of course, no one has ever accused bureaucrats of devotion to either the truth or accuracy. Nor are they known for thinking outside the box and challenging their fellows, especially when everyone else’s head is already nodding.
The mere notion of “unprivileged suspects” stinks as much as the Bushy cesspool from which it originated. This claptrap, which has “been frequently used at least since the beginning of the last century in legal literature, military manuals and case law,” creates pariahs who allegedly lie outside the Constitution’s protection. But that document’s whole purpose was to bind down rulers from mischief, as Jefferson put it. Ergo, its strictures hamstring them without reference to their victims; the identity, nationality, or standing of those people on whom the government preys is irrelevant.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” regardless of location: it may establish no religion either here or in Timbuktu. Nor may it abridge the freedom of the press, any press, whether America’s, Malaysia’s, or Zimbabwe’s. There are no “unprivileged” folks anywhere because the Federal government may not, period. It may not act except in a few instances and as the Constitution allows it, regardless of the recipients of those actions. The neoconservative nonsense that the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular apply only to U.S. citizens is as silly as it is pernicious.
McCain’s brainchild may be heinous, but it isn’t surprising. Anyone who reads history and understands government could have predicted it as the next step in our rulers’ war on the Constitution, a.k.a., the War on Terror. As usual, said Warriors began by demonizing their victims, in this case “terrorists”; once Americans feared and hated the demons, the Warriors chipped away at the “terrorists’” Constitutional rights. Serfs cheered and thanked Leviathan for saving them. Like children distracted by the lollypop the doctor offers, they never expected the needle aimed at terrorists to stab them.
But governments seldom care about tyrannizing the few foreigners who fall into their hands; rather, it’s their own citizens they lust to command. The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” furthers that plot, stripping rights from Americans whom bureaucrats accuse of terrorism. When fools cheer this as well, when they docilely watch as the FBI indefinitely detains their neighbors for the CIA to torture, rulers will smile and nod. Their next bill won’t bother mentioning “terrorists,” even as a pretext. Citizens, especially but not only those who dissent, will be its sole target. And there will be far more things from which to dissent — forced relocation and labor, perhaps even medical experimentation to rival Dr. Mengele’s, if Obamacare passes.
“I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to improve this process to obtain better, more uniform results,” McCain threatens. “…[M]y efforts will not stop until we have addressed all the detainee issues in a comprehensive fashion.”
For once, I believe him.
April 15, 2010
ROFASix - In the previous post I pondered whether those in power in government really understand that those who don't agree with them are not automatically terrorists.
It seems like a silly issue, that is until you read that FBI message which talks about those who deny federal sovereignty as domestic terrorists. Many deny Congress has the right to order states to do certain actions via through unfunded mandates or by claiming the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution demands it. In a recent instance, up to 38 states may challenge the federal governments new health care law that trashes state and individual sovereignty. Denial that the federal government has sovereignty over the state and the individual is not a new concept. You see, some actually believe that the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is still in effect!
It is a uniquely American idea that no government of the people, for the people has sovereignty over citizens except that granted by those citizens they govern. Today, we see a classic battle between progressive socialists who believe the individual is but a serf who serves the state and old time constitutionalists who think otherwise.
It is clear Congress doesn't understand the difference. That was evident when long time statist Senator John McCain introduced Senate Bill S. 3081. I wrote about it last month and no one but a couple of bloggers seemed as horrified by what it said as I was.
If legislation such as S.3081 became law, you become a terrorist based upon the whim of those in power and without due process. It was never supposed to happen in America like that ... but it has. Did the terrorists win after 9/11 when we accepted less individual freedom without protest and accepted more government intrusion in the hope it would make us safer somehow? Of the many lessons in history, one is that is clear is that when you give up your rights, you will never get them back from your government.
The FBI described what it called a "sovereign citizen" extremist movement thusly:
"[. . .] anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement."
Statists like McCain believe in the overarching power and unlimited sovereignty of the federal government. Progressive Socialists realize that the two are key elements to reshaping America to change into what it envisions -- a kinder gentler state made up of three classes: looters, moochers and producers. Both accept the idea that the federal government has unlimited and total sovereignty over the states and the individual.
Both will tell you that the individual has one choice when facing the overwhelming power and sovereignty of the central government. The individual can submit or be "dealt with" using the full and unlimited power of the state.
If one believes in state and individual sovereignty instead of federal sovereignty, does that make them an “anti-government extremists?” While the FBI doesn't say so yet, they appear to consider it an "indicator" of criminality.
Were S. 3081 law, the President can designate you a terrorist and off you go to "SuperMax" or perhaps a FEMA camp in some nice arid region of the Southwest US. Don't bother claiming you have rights as a citizen, or that your "due process rights were denied. It won't fly if S. 3081 becomes law.
It is but one more of those horrific bills sitting in committees in Congress right now that make the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 look positively constitutional instead of what they are. They represent one more reason why it is so important to clear out the old time professional statists and socialists in Congress who are now but clueless professional politicians who have no idea of the foundation on which this country was founded or the economic system that made it once the most powerful economy on Earth.
When one advocates the overthrow of the existing government or practice behavior that takes another’s property by deceit or force, they are criminals. When citizens demand a government that works within the boundaries of law and the US Constitution they are not, at least until there is legislation like Senator McCain's on the books.
April 20, 2010
OpenSecrets - This table lists the top donors to Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
