Glenn Greenwald is suffering the effects of a very severe moral wedgie. Like many, and I include myself, he suffers from deep, impotent outrage toward the moral failure of the Obama Administration; it's abandonment of it's clear, legal duty to prosecute war crimes committed under the aegis of the Bushistas.
He waxes sarcastic and wroth, no doubt in part due to the fact that he is being studiously ignored by those who have the manifest duty to act.
"Criminals"? "Prosecutions"? "Obliged to open a case"? "Violations of human rights"? Just because they maintained a few secret prisons in violation of domestic and international law? What kind of crazy, purist, Far Leftist utopians are running that place? They need a heavy dose of pragmatism so they can understand all the reasons why so-called "crimes" like this can be overlooked -- just blissfully forgotten like a bad dream. Even worse, with intemperate and shrill language of the type they're throwing around, it's seems clear that the Lithuanian press is sorely in need of some David Broders, Fred Hiatts, and David Ignatiuses to explain to them that subjecting law-breaking political officials to "investigations" and "prosecutions" is quite disruptive and unpleasant when those crimes involve matters other than consensual sex between adults.
Even more alarming, this "rule of law" and "human rights" fetish seems to be spreading: "In neighboring Poland, prosecutors in the capital of Warsaw have opened a criminal probe into reports that the CIA operated a prison for al-Qaeda suspects near a former military air base." Last month, an Italian court convicted 22 CIA agents of the so-called "crime" of kidnapping someone off their street and sending him to Egypt to be tortured. And the British High Court this week released its written Opinion -- over the objections of British and American officials -- ordering the release of details of Binyam Mohamed's torture at the hands of U.S. agents.
Thankfully, the U.S. remains a bastion of pragmatic sanity in this rising sea of accountability extremism.
Glenn, here's the thing. Things are worse than you suspect. You see, Lithuania is not acting idealistically, or in accordance with law through some triumph of principle over pragmatism. The rule of law is the most stunningly pragmatic concept ever developed by mankind. It precludes all sorts of problems. It's civilization's way of saying "RTFM" to the offensively and dangerously stupid. Those who will not read and abide by the manual are invited to explore the diversions provided by The Impartial Bug-Zapper of the Law.
The rule of law is preferable to the law of man because it insulates leaders from the need to make impossible political calculations between right action and personal survival. But certain sorts of men (it's almost always men) much prefer to be in personal charge and to be able to act with impunity.
People like George Bush, Don Rumsfeld and espectially Dark Lord Cheney are exemplars of this sort of man. They are sociopaths and worse, entirely indifferent to the consequences others suffer for their ambitions. And when they are permitted to flourish, they corrupt everything they touch, to the point that even the most honest and pure will be required to use corrupt and incompetent men to serve at his will.
Now Obama comes from Chicago. He may be a good man, but I doubt that "pure" or "idealistic" are words we should apply to him.
But he has a severe problem. If he prosecutes the Bushistas - as international law and Constitution alike agree is is his duty, to kick the matters raised into a Court in order to determine the outcome as matters of fact and law - there is a significant possibility that he will be faced with some sort of military/institutional revolt.
That is to say, Glenn - you are justly outraged. So am I. But since I wish to live in a society in which the Rule of Law has not been suborned, I returned to Canada. As a dual citizen, I had the right to choose - and strongly felt a substantial duty to make such a choice.
If you wish to live in such a society as a natural-born citizen, realize that it currently does not exist and has NOT existed for a substantial period of time. Not in MY lifetime, Sir. Consider that advancements in civil rights during the last fifty years have often come at the cost of cracked skulls inflicted by the supposed agents of the theoretical rule of law. Law that only protects some, in accordance to their utility to the State, is not law at all.
Glenn, here's the thing. It's a very depressing insight, but as near as I can tell, you can either choose to move to a country where the rule of law exists, or you can choose to fight for it's re-imposition upon at least some of territories of the former United States.
I observe the current situation is increasingly intolerable, both for large numbers of US citizens and the world in general. Either the US behaves as befits a member of the community of civilized nations, or it will be chastised in increasingly firm and embarrassing ways until it reforms itself or collapses under the weight of it's cognitive dissonances.
President Obama may well be cast in the role of overseeing the dissolution of the United States as we have known it. But whether he is to be seen in hindsight as the caretaker of the process of dissolution in as peaceful a way as possible - the Gorbechev role - or as the exemplar of a renewed vision and a newly vital nation is still largely up to him and, of course, the strings he can haul upon and the people he can call on. People... well, people such as YOU, Glen. Do not ask what your country can do for you, Glenn. What the fuck are you gonna do for your country?
For myself, I could not continue to live within the boundaries of a nation that would not apply it's own laws to itself, one that will abandon it's fundamental principles when slightly startled. And in fact, is all 9/11 was, on the scale of events that happen within the US every single year. I came to the conclusion that the US didn't lose it's brains that day - it simply and collectively dropped the pretense of being a civilized nation of laws even unto itself.
So Al-Queda won without need to even try firing one more shot. After all, what need? Your own C-Street Taliban was more than happy to continue the fight on their behalf, seeking every single social outcome BinLadin would.
But Glenn, you are starting to become shrill - and it's a sure sign that you risk your health continuing in this vein. Granted, the path that those in power OUGHT to follow, under the terms of concience and law, is clear.
It's equally clear that there are those in power that will oppose that to the last ditch. That will commit acts of violence to prevent it happening. That will sabotage it in every way possible. And yet, you think law will prevail?
Someone has to enforce the law. That implies the willingness to step up and do it. If those charged with that task refuse, they must not merely be nobly and peacefully protested. They must be replaced by those who will - and they must be made to understand that it is not a negotiable choice. By peaceful means, by political pressure, by force of public outrage if possible - but the continuing abuses of power must end and those who have abused it held to account, that this is not a matter of political will or calculation.
Unless it becomes quite clear that the danger to the administration from the left is just as grave as the danger from the right, and by "danger" I mean a very literal potential danger, there will be no progress. It's not about Left and right, it is about Lawful and Unlawful, a choice between the Rule of Law and the rule of unworthy, corrupt, unaccountable sociopaths. Such people will not simply admit defeat. The only "dirty bomb plot" EVER proven to be greatly advanced past the wishful thinking stage was by a Nazi-identified Maine Millionaire.
And it was apparently aimed at the Obama Inaguaral.
It's not cynical to say that might makes right - for no right has ever been established in the face of superior might. So progressives should start thinking as to whether their convictions carry with them the courage to fight, at need. For that need may well come, and weak Reids will not serve you well.
Look at the numbers. Given courage and determination, Glenn - which side has more Divisions? Assembled into serried and courageous ranks, with rotund tummies sucked in, by the numbers sir, by the logistics, sir, by the accounts of who has the ports, the people and the expertise, who wins, if they have the will?
Obama still seems to think this is a question that has a political resolution - but he is opposed by those who will not abide by the results of an honest political process - should it actually occur despite their best efforts.
Therefore, the left (and by "Left", I mean "not batshit crazy") needs to comprehend that this is not a debate. It is a choice between competing powers and competing visions - and one side is stupid, crazy, dangerous, and a lot smaller. They are quite aware that if they are to gain power over you, it must be through confusion and terror, by threats and by the use of examples of extreme violence.
That is to say, Dick Cheney and his ilk, these people are terrorists, traitors and worse. They must be dealt with as such. Indeed, they will leave you no choice but to deal with them, now, tomorrow, next year. And that is not at all a matter of debate. The only question is, will they prevail over you before being dealt with by the rest of the world?
Debates occur between peers. Persons deserving of equal respect. People of sound moral and mental character. People willing to admit fact, reason and a decent consideration of the feelings and ambitions of all parties in the public square. This is not the case, nor has it been the case for at least a decade. Nor has the situation been particularly changed by an apparent change in power. Power, sir, must be used and used well in order to have meaning.
Take compromise off the table. One does not compromise with those who's most fundamental belief is that you deserve death, or worse.
Stop pretending that they don't really mean that, or that they have a higher nature to appeal to. Their choice is as stark as that they would impose. They may submit to a reconstituted, civilized national culture, and live, or they may choose to dash themselves against the reality they reject. The process may be unpleasant - exactly how unpleasant depends in part on how long those who know what must happen resist an unpleasant chore. But the outcome is not even slightly in doubt.
The rest of the world would be perfectly happy to see the United States disintigrate into a collection of smaller, competing states. It would simplify matters enormously, since the US is certainly no longer seen as a stablizing power, much less a force for good or even an economic engine. Nobody is interested particularly in helping the US save face - and certainly not at the expense of their vital trade relations or their own ideals.
Glenn, what are you going to do about it? I think we both know how much reasonable speech has achieved. It's now time to apply pressure. Start thinking of yourself as the leader of a First Amendment Militia - for if the first is not applied hard, true and well, the exercise of the Second may well be required.
PERRspectives Blog: The GOP and the Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat: "As the beaten and battered conservative faithful gather at the CPAC event in Washington, casual incitements to violence against the President, Democratic leaders and liberal Americans once again are filling the air. While former UN ambassador John Bolton produced guffaws with the specter of Obama's hometown being destroyed in a terrorist attack, Joe 'the Plumber' Wurzelbacher earnestly suggested some members of Congress should be shot. Meanwhile readers of the web site of Fox News host Sean Hannity voted on 'what kind of revolution' they found most appealing, even as Glenn Beck discussed the coming American civil war.
As recent events show, these increasingly frequent episodes are no laughing matter. More disturbing still, whether concerning abortion, gay Americans, immigration or judicial appointments, the line connecting the rhetoric of the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative movement to right-wing terror is a very short one."
Now, if only it had been possible for someone other than - well, someone with nothing to lose by saying it - to have been saying this for as long as I have been.
I'm not sure if I'm bragging or whining. Both, I think. But I sincerely wish, over and above both - that I had been wrong.
The first two persons speaking, mind you, are ORDAINED, Evangelical ministers.
I usta remember when a paster was kind of expected to have some of that book larnin' that's jus' too dangerous for people like the Huckabees and the Jukes back up in the holler.
Well, 'cept for those things about not screwin' livestock. Lessn' the only other choice was your sister, 'cause, well, cain't hunt squirrels if'n you go blind.
Lots of people are saying it's unfair to pick on folks from Tennissee for such obvious stupidity. Indeed, I grew up with the same sorts in Washington State. They talk just the same (slightly different accent, same casual disregard for grammar and fact) and the wronger they were, the more sure they were right, because, the Good Book Said So.
You'd probably be unsurprised to find out that if you actually looked it up in the good book, and you could even find something vaguely like what they were referring to, it said something completely different. Funny to realize that the Catholics didn't want to give up Latin because then the People would know what the Good Book said. I imagine this sort of counter example is the sort of thing Jesuits use to torment Dominicans with.
But really and for true - these are the exact thirty percent that put Bush into cheating distance of the Presidency. These are the same thirty percent that try and shut down anyone trying to commit any act of decency or common sense in our nation. And they are just as fanatically stupid as they sound.
We have to start taking them seriously - as a serious threat. NOT as people who's faith and opinions deserve respect, (for they are, as they are more than happy to point out to you, one and the same) but as potential terrorists and of course, fomenters and cheerleaders for being terrified and using terror and torture in order to inflict "God's wrath" on unbelievers.
It is, I suppose, an ironic but fortunate truth that a disproportionate share of their offspring will be paying for the sins of their fathers. But then, seven generations ago, they were as well.
Call this an exercise in free-enterprise intelligence analysis and a strong advisory that in tapping our phones, you might just be distracted from far more significant indicators of what's going on domestically.
I am concerned - as everyone else should be - as to what displays like this do for public respect for the rule of law. It's certainly eroding mine, and making me consider applying for a concealed carry permit so that I may ensure my own safety without involving such people. When a person as risk-averse as myself starts seeing a pistol and a lime pit as being potentially a safer response to aggression than a call to 911, it represents a serious erosion of everything that the word "civilization" represents.
While the possibly racist and certainly political nature of this incident is well worth screaming about, such incidents transcend the importance of those two considerations, because there is one factor that is more important than race or politics.
The day "authorities" assume the right to pick and choose which citizens (even David Duke) may attend on any basis other than fire regulations - it's time to set a match to the place and build anew. If you think that's an Unamerican and unpatriotic thing to say, or even think, I refer you to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Our Revolutionary war and our Civil War both started with what, in my opinion, were far fewer sins of less significance than we have endured under George Bush's misrule. Our self-appointed Masters, our self-styled earls and would-be Counts should thank God and Al Gore that the Internet has for this time proven a more attractive battleground than the fields and valleys that still reek of the blood of Patriot dead. And the forces of reason are winning, the voices supporting the president have steadily diminished until there remain only those that any rational and reasonable administration would be embarrassed to associate with; the Dead-Enders like Coulter, Malkin and O'Rielly - those incapable of uttering a single paragraph without saying something that is either racist, illiterate, breathtakingly stupid or an obvious lie. Often it's all of the above.
Bush is the dog. These are the fleas. Any questions?
But should they be of the cynical opinion that the Internet provides an outlet with no real impact, one they can shut down any time they like - I should advise them that given current technology, the best they could expect to do is choke down the bandwidth - and essentially create a huge, Pearl-Harbor level event to motivate people to switch to more active demonstrations of non-compliance. Amazing how it's progressed from geeky obsession to critical infrastructure in ten years; all, apparently with the implications eluding those who are too self-important to sully themselves by exploring it themselves. Considering it's incredible importance of these here "tubes," it's kind of insulting to have a leadership so technically impaired and intellectually challenged that they cannot grasp the implications.
You can't shut it down. There would be an instantaneous financial panic.
But the fact that SAC was unable to maintain operational security on an attempted clandestine transfer of six nuclear cruise missiles should have been a clue as to the danger it presents to the ambitions of the powerful. The fact that hundreds, if not thousands of former military persons with appropriate knowledge have unhesitatingly shredded every single lame and implausible "explanation" for this incident should be another clue.
And one reason for our seething discontent with our leadership is that they have not bothered to demonstrate any great competence for or even great interest in the the posts of power they hold. Why should we even consider permitting your ambition? Those who lust after the power of kings should be at least capable of wiping their own assess without needing instructions printed on each sheet of toilet paper. And I most especially include politicians of all stripes and sexes noted more for their ambition than their principles. Yes, Ms. Clinton, that does include you.
Right on top of the pile.
It concerns me that your outrage at the transgressions against the American People, our rights and our liberties are so very muted, it seems to me that such powers tempt you unduly. And I give you the credit of being smart enough to be really dangerous.
Yes, we need to talk about health care. But it seems to me that when there's a sitting lame-duck president who is clearly seeking a pretext to nuke a sovereign nation in order to create a "national emergency" that will facilitate whatever increasingly delusional plans exist in his addled brain, it's not the first priority.
I'm going to vote for whoever understands this. And if I don't get the chance to vote, a conspiracy theorist paranoia which seems to have evolved into a very credible suspicion, I will stand up and march alongside anyone with the courage to say "enough!"
I've never taken any precautions regarding having my communications monitored by the government, so I'm sure there is a file somewhere. The only thing I ask is that someone read it, and consider that I - and likely everyone else in same bin I'm in - are saying the same things, have been saying it for some time, and have been expressing increasing frustration and impatience. And as a whole, we have been willing to give endless benefit of the doubt, we have been enormously patient with you, oh, our arrogant masters, and have been rewarded with responses that would make a mildly retarded five-year old feel patronized.
The latest form letter from my Republican Senator, John Ensign, in response to my expressed concerns about illegal detentions, secret trials and erosions of the constitution has convinced me that self-importance and ideology can produce all the same symptoms of congenital retardation. Clearly, he's a 15 watt bulb in a 200 watt socket, barely capable of breathing and holding up his own hair.
As far as I'm concerned, he is the best single argument against the neocon ideology and it's culture of intellectual, social and moral corruption - he appears to genuinely believe and support it's every jot and tittle. Even now. He's THAT stupid.
And apparently, - at least according to his correspondence with me, that is how intelligent he thinks I am.
We all know the intelligence infrastructure is monitoring the Internet, our telephones and indeed all forms of private communications between citizens in defiance of custom, law and constitution. We know this in part because our Dear Leader, he who is propped up by the Assets of Evil, has bragged about it. Publicly. To reassure us that we are safe in his hands from the forces of Terror.
I, for one, am convinced that he would not recognize a real terrorist plot if arrived on his desk wrapped in flayed human skin powdered in anthrax with a video recording of Osama Bin Ladin chanting "this is a terrorist plot."
Dear goddess in heaven, can't you revoke his security clearance or something? But we know you are at least trying to monitor our private communications and our public blog postings. Just in case we are harboring terrorists in Hoboken or Eureka. So, presumably, at least one poor underpaid G4 knows what the rumblings in these here "internets" reveal and has dutifully forwarded it to those who need to know.
How can it be that such critical intelligence can so clearly be dismissed as unimportant; irrelevant to the clear and clearly stupid goals this administration and it's supporters cling to like some unwashed, urine soaked blankie?
Please try again. Use smaller words. Perhaps a big red felt marker would help. Jump up and down if you have to. Supply diagrams.
I'm not hooked into the intelligence community - but with an Internet connection and a three digit IQ, I'm prepared to draw some of my own conclusions, based on access to information and correlative resources Allan Dullies would have cheerfully sacrificed his left testicle to have. I wonder if it's dawned on anyone at CIA, DIA or NSA that millions of people analyzing and sharing publicly available information is a resource that likely trumps anything Carnivore or the NSA eavesdropping can reveal?
There simply are not enough warm bodies with the right security clearances and qualifications for it to shake out any other way. It hasn't helped that gays, liberals, and apparently anyone who speaks Farsi or Arabic is considered a security risk.
You may well be concerned at the resources broadband Internet puts in the hands of rogue and third world states, as well you should be. And I'd be surprised if you were not concerned about the reliability (and motivations) of sources in the EU, Israel and the Middle East.
But you should be even more concerned about what this means in the hands of an increasingly impatient citizenry who are easily able to act on the maxim "Trust, but Verify." I'm sorry, "trust us, we know what we are doing" is no longer a credible response. It's a punchline, as hilarious as President whastisbeard saying "we have no homosexuals in Iran."
So far, and I state this regretfully, that the last seven years have demonstrated either a complete failure on the part of various intelligence agencies to gather useful, actionable and relevant information, the inability to analyze it, or the complete failure to communicate it's implications to people making decisions. What we see expressed in every decision, policy and appointment is a complete ignorance of or a stunningly foolish indifference to consequence.
And I state this without any need to assume "realpoltik" motivations, hidden agendas, or the need to placate the American people with reasons for actions they find palatable.
Even in the most cynical light, taking the word of the "Project for a New American Century" and accepting the idea that it's proper to act with frank and deliberate intent to dominate the world and impose a Pax Americana, this administration's actions have made that vision laughably absurd. We are LESS of a world power now than we were when George Bush took office, with LESS military might, LESS ability to apply economic pressure, LESS influence by any measure - and we are trembling on the brink of irrelevance - of becoming not merely a second-rank power, but a scattered assortment of balkanized, competing states.
Such a consummation is devoutly wished by many - many of them being our supposed allies. Should there be any degree of civil unrest, much less outright civil war, those leading it will find no lack of financial and military support.
And if you can't meaningfully interdict the drug trade - I don't think you are gonna do any better stopping the flow of supplies to any determined insurgency. Our borders make those of Iraq look like the Berlin wall. And we are all painfully aware of how successful we have been in our efforts against determined insurgencies. I think it rather likely that insurgent citizens can do rather better than Iraqis, or even the North Vietnamese Army. After all, while they did have General Giap - an admitted military genius - Bush has fired every military leader that has shown any evidence of understanding the military realities well enough to object to his ambitions - so there will be no "leadership gap."
So the only way for this administration to "win" a civil war is to not declare one. I mention that aloud as it's one obvious possibility, considering all the many and various preparations George has made, against that day.
Why George's manifest and compounded stupidities seem to lead toward some fulfillment of Armageddon matters little. The final battle for world domination is an inherently BAD thing - EVEN IF Jesus comes in glory to save the shell-shocked remnant of the Just. However, I doubt that would occur. The bible is pretty clear that if you think you know the hour and the day, you are wrong. I'm pretty sure He would consider it presumptuous for some world leader to force His hand.
And I think it would be amazing, frankly, if there are many, if any world leaders willing to permit it. If anything, they are tacitly, if not actively conspiring to allow us to destroy ourselves, rather than take more active countermeasures. However, if there are not British, French, Russian and Chinese missiles allocated for every single aircraft carrier and strategic asset - including the Dark Cube With No Address - I would be absolutely flabbergasted.
But have great faith in Bush's ability to fail, even without help. What I do care about is that presumably smarter and saner people continue to permit him to live in the White House, instead of a secure basement suite in Bethesda - along with Dick Cheney, a man with equally obvious and severe mental disqualifications for office.
At some point, you have to decide whether or not you signed on for such a thorough professional cornholing, and consider what price you are paying to continue excusing behaviors you would not tolerate from your toddlers.
This post started as a response to a comment on a now notorious YouTube video by one akfuzz.
Here's the video again.
Here's what he said:
Obviously you have never been in this type of situation. Perhaps you could go out and do the job since you seem to know what the deal is. When you get stabbed or, or worse, shot, by an irrational handcuffed suspect, write back and let us know what you think, eh? BTW, I was not defending this officer, merely stating that given the limited video, 'tis hard to say what really happened.
Ok, that sounds almost reasonable, until you actually think about it.
There are two minutes and thirteen seconds of sadistic pornography captured on that tape - and as a cop, in a live situation, you are expected to assess threats, probable perps, instigators and victims in under 15 seconds, with any more time being a distinct luxury.
But with good training, that's easily possible, and that's a good thing, because you can get all sorts of dead in 15 seconds. So I KNOW who the perp is. And I really don't care that the victim was "acting out."
Here's what SHE said about it:
In the video, Gill, once inside the police car, kicks the back-seat window and continues to scream. "At this point, I had been Tased for so long and just drug around by my handcuffs. I was terrified of this man. He was no longer a police officer to me."
I suggest to you that that was not compliant mindset the officer was supposedly intending.
And if you ever find yourself in this situation, I assure you that a jury will find that amount of video more than enough time to assess whether sober compliance or panicked flailing is "more reasonable" to expect of a drunken woman already - by her own admission and according to the testimony of others- already in an aroused emotional state.
Earlier, akfuzz had uttered this deadpan confirmation of observations and criticisms I'd made earlier about cops, tasers and contempt of those currently in power for the rights and dignity of the citizenry.
And, the Taser is used to gain compliance, nothing more. A suspect who continues to resist will be Taser'd again, handcuffed or not, male or female...It is not a gender bias thing, I have seen both men and women do horrible things while handcuffed. Nobody can say what they would have done unless they were in the same situation, not even other police officers such as myself. It would not be fair.
It is very hard to Monday morning QB something like this. I could see where folks would be upset seeing this limited video footage, however, not knowing all the details makes it wrong to judge either the officer or the suspect. I am sure the internal investigation will reveal what really happened, and it's not right to bow to political pressure or the media, such as it appears in this case.
Yes, fuzzynuts, we HAVE seen how tasers are used to "gain compliance, nothing more." Even when it's a compliance that's a flat out violation of constitutional rights or completely unreasonable to expect, due to the obvious mental state of the person being tasered.
And in both cases, there's reasonable evidence to suggest from the raw video that there's a component of sadistic enjoyment in using the taser to inflict pain and enforce compliance.
Now, sir, my standards tell me that a person doing that without a badge has no right to expect restraint on my part to end their offense against the decent expectations of civilized persons. How do you then excuse those who do the exact same thing under color of law? Have you no shame? Have you no professional standards? Aren't you personally embarrassed by the mere existence of such walking trouser stains?
The raw footage from an officer's dash camera - a device intended to prevent the impasse of "he said, she said" situations in court is not "media pressure." It's presenting evidence of a situation that is of concern to the community.
In the real world where knowing truth from fiction is important, outside of the realm of Fox news, facts are facts, and evidence trumps protests of supposed innocence.
Note, when I say "evidence," I mean precisely that, in an exact legal sense. Whatever motivations or training deficits turn up, we don't need to wait to find out what "really happened." The why of it may be of interest, but what we saw IS exactly what happened. What we saw was a repeated assault against a person who was no threat to the officer.
What we do not know is what caused the situation to escalate to that point out of range of the camera - but it would be unwise to assume that testimony from either the cop, the club or the bartender mentioned in the dispute will be without any trace or shade of self-excusing selective interpretation. Besides, we know another thing.
ALL assaults against a person are, in fact, intended to "gain compliance, nothing more."
The blunt truth is, if you have to immediately resort to force to gain compliance, it doesn't show a lot of confidence in your own ability to control a situation, or much respect for the willingness of the average citizen to comply with reasonable, lawful directions in a tense situation.
Perhaps this is because their contempt for your understanding of "lawful order" is well earned? Perhaps it's due to the fact that, having a central nervous system capable of pointing and firing a Taser, you also have some doubts about the solidity of citizen support for your authority that the actual existence of the Taser implies - a means of enforcing compliance that any semi-trained thug can use in situations where a citizen's rightful response would otherwise be amused or enraged contempt at best?
You see, when you pull a weapon to enforce your will, you admit your powerlessness to affect the situation without it. You have abandoned any pretence of moral or lawful authority. You directly state - simply by carrying the damn thing - that you are no longer willing to depend on citizens being willing to comply because they respect you as a symbol of the rule of law and order. You expect them to comply out of fear.
But you pull the trigger, even on a "less lethal" weapon, you have just publicly admitted that your willingness to settle for fear and enforced compliance has bought you a buttload of paperwork - and that's the BEST possible outcome.
I've never been a cop - but I've ten years of martial arts under my belt, an art with a heavy emphasis on avoiding situations and resolving them with an absolute minimum of force. You learn to read body language, you develop a sixth sense for body language, and you make a habit of respectfully treating everyone as if they were Bruce Lee dipped in nitroglycerin. Why?
Because the most dangerous opponent is the one who realizes they don't exist on your threat-o-meter and is just drunk or distraught enough to need to prove you wrong.
Wait, make that a city councilman, a partner in the state's largest personal injury firm, who happens to be Bruce Lee, dipped in nitroglycerin.
And here's another why you should think like that. This jerk figured there was no downside to shocking the hell out of the pretty blond who wouldn't even look at him out of uniform.
What's she gonna do about it? He asks himself, Have a hissy fit?
Yeah. On CNN, no less. With her lawyer. With his very own porn tape playing in the background.
That cartoon cop was confident in the lack of power the suspect had in the situation, and willing to exploit that power imbalance to publicly humiliate her and disrespect her in front of her friends and peers - in order to avoid the heavy lifting (mental and physical) that is the job.
To protect and to serve includes suspects and panicked drunken blond chicks. It does NOT include acts that can be validly compared, metaphorically and in terms of impact on the victim and onlookers, to literal, physical rape.
Your primary tools are your presence, you aura of confident command, your knowledge of law, your reputation, your ability to create peace and security out of thin air, your patience and your integrity. All the rest of the crap hanging off you is available to any five buck an hour security guard - strike that, to anyone with an Internet connection. Including the uniform and the badge.
So the first thing you MUST keep in mind is that the casual use of said crap can erode every one of your main tools. The last thing you want is for peaceful citizens - even peaceful CRIMINAL citizens - to see you as a random, personal threat.
There must be fifty people who saw that incident, and one thing you can rely on - they will hesitate to call the cops in any preventative way, because they are now aware that calling the police will not prevent a situation from turning into an incident, it will absolutely guarantee it.
And people wonder why the violent crime rate is so high in the US.
If you have to rely on your uniform, your badge or your service issue plastic penis to prove you are a cop - like the fat-ass lazy jerk in the video - if you have to enforce compliance with a perfectly reasonable command - in the back of your mind, in the dead of night, and especially as you do the routine CYA in the report, realize that somehow you screwed up and were lucky enough to live through it because the citizen or citizen you abused or oppressed gave you a pass. Don't turn that mistake into a freaking policy, much less get lazy and expect you have a right to a life where it doesn't matter that you stupidity is committed in front of your own dashboard camera.
I mean, were I a lawyer, I would surely point out the fact height of arrogance that reveals and the depths of contempt for the good opinion of the citizenry implied by that particular lapse.
As for the risks involved in policing, do not whine to us about that. You get the uniform, you get the fast car with the sirens, you get to play with things that go bang and the county pays you for the ammo. It's an inherently dangerous job, with the perk of all the free adrenaline rushes you can stand. People actually jump out of perfectly good airplanes to get that rush, at a couple-hundred bucks a pop. You, well, we pay you for that.
Besides, it's a lot like a snowboarder stressing about wipe-outs. The only proper response is to try and keep a straight face and gently suggest golf as an alternate avocation.
A cop unwilling to take risks on behalf of the citizenry is simply an armed thug. And when I look at something like that and realize that as a potentially armed citizen I could handle that situation better - I will. And while I could not do your job on a day to day basis, Sir, there is nothing that would prevent me from handling such an incident far better. I know this as a fact, because I've been in such a situation, with a drunken, possibly suicidal citizen talking about the revolver he had in his waistband.
Not only did I handle the situation, I handled it without violence and without anyone at the bar I happened to be in becoming aware that there was a situation. That is because I relied on my ability to talk him down, rather than on the concealed weapon under MY shirt.
I'll bet you a box of KrispyKreems that Ohio club has now hired their own security, so they don't have to rely on the risk of the city sending some random jerk to deal with loud drunks. Just because they wanted her gone that day didn't mean they didn't want her to come back - but not only did you traumatize her, but you scared the hell out of everyone else who was there. And it's a fact that whether it's fair or not, people avoid people and situations that remind them of very traumatic events. So the taxpaying owners have a very legitimate beef with that cop, his boss and the city. I imagine they have lawyers calculating the odds of successfully suing the city - and everyone else in range - for the loss of business.
So, really, it would probably have been better for everyone had that cop just slept off his ill-gotten doughnuts because his "resolution" of a breach of the peace was worse than the scuffs, hurt feelings and property damage he was sent to prevent.
Here's a new, related video that's brand new, and I'd like your professional opinion:
Consider this - and remember that tasers actually log their usage, for later use in court.
Now, here we don't know the exact situation, but it's difficult to imagine how a properly trained officer could end up tasering a schizophrenic woman - the person, by the way, who had actually CALLED 911 - and expect this to be taken as a good outcome. Oh, by the way, she passed away as a result of being tazed multiple times with two separate weapons. And yes, she was armed and she was delusional.
Oh well, that just adds to the challenge for a good cop. With good cops, situations like this end with rueful handshakes and mysterious appearances of chocolate chip cookies in the squad room. Anything that ends in a death is considered less than ideal, pretty much by the "duh" standard.
I know, I know, "we can't know what really happened." But, actually, we do know what happened - a homicide occurred as the outcome of a routine call.
We pay police to handle situations exactly like this with the expectation that they will be trained and equipped to as a matter of routine, with as little fuss and conflict as possible. We have the reasonable expectation that they have the training to deal with such situations better than we could. Let's recall that she called and asked for help. Obviously, help is precisely what she did not get.
So, whatever the resolution, whatever the facts, no matter what happened to make it all drop in the pot and to cause TWO able-bodied, fully armed cops to taser a morbidly obese schizophrenic confined to a power chair. She had two paring knives and a hammer. They carried guns fully capable of disabling the power chair, rendering her immobile, or at least very, very slow.
So why is she dead? WHY is the person who called the police for help dead as a direct result of police action, and what affect will that have on the willingness of people to call for help?
Presumably the cops expected a delusional schizophrenic to process an order to drop the weapons as if she were a sane, solid citizen who was NOT being menaced with the threat of force. They were clearly unwilling to accept even the tiniest risk of injury to themselves. But she was too freaking crazy to process that order, and the normal response of police - as you yourself stated - is to apply pain to "encourage" compliance.
Now, here's the bottom line. You are not employed by the "good citizens" in order to keep the "bad guys" in line. You are employed by the taxpayers - that would be all of us - to maintain law and order. So when you commit a breach of the peace as stock reaction to a fuckup in progress, you simply make a far worse fuckup than if you just stayed home.
Who in their right mind would call you for help, and why should you be collecting a paycheck? Hey, there are lots of people willing to beat the crap out of other folks for free, we surely don't need to pay for such a dubious "service."
Seems to me people who react like this are on the wrong side of the bars. When situations like this become commonplace, a widespread disrespect for and distrust of peace officers is inevitable. It makes the job more difficult and dangerous and ensures that when a situation does come to your attention, it's far worse than it would be for a society that is well policed and is generally law-abiding by choice.
Jeez; people like the cops shown in these videos - of which there are far, far too many to choose from - make Reno 911 look like a training film. And yes, we note "the blue wall" reaction, the automatic assumption that a fellow cop can do no wrong.
Well, as understandable and as human as that reaction is, policing is a profession with a skill set and a desired outcome - which is peace, safety, law and order. You are expected to handle confrontation, stress, danger, irrational and unreasonable people BETTER than other people.
When that does not occur, questions must arise, and you - as a person directly affected by the damage bad cops do to the reputation of good cops - should be the one asking them. Quite frankly, incompetent cops cause situations that get good cops maimed and killed. Believe it or not, I consider that an unacceptable outcome even though I stand firmly behind the next statement. As citizens, we have the second amendment right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from the abuse of power by armed thugs, especially armed thugs employed by governments and powerful people who wish to "enforce compliance."
We delegate that power to the police, but nobody who has actually read and studied our Constitution, our history, and the Founder's intent can delude themselves that any cop has more authority than that, or needs it. Your badge simply signifies that you are a citizen trained to keep the peace and can, presumably be trusted with that duty.
There is no inherent right for a peace officer to use force to impose their will, nor do they have any broader mandate to use force than, say, me. Actually, their mandate to use force is narrower, tied to the reasonable force doctrine with the understanding that they can be reasonably be expected to react faster and be better armed in most ordinary situations, as well as mentally prepared to make actually skillful decisions in dangerous situations. Therefore, a situation where I might be excused for blowing someone away would not excuse a police officer in the same circumstances, because a cop has more options than I do.
There is no authority they may appeal to that is superior to that of any other citizen. Indeed, their authority is identical, coming from the same constitutional authority. The citizen - and that includes the one you may be arresting at the time - has exactly the same responsibility and obligation to uphold and ensure the peace.
There is no "cop exception." A cop is simply a member of a "well regulated militia" who's especially trained to do that better than an armed mob.
And if it becomes clear that they cannot regulate themselves, and ARE no better than an armed mob, if they become arrogant and abusive it's not merely the right, but the actual, literal constitutional duty of a citizen to suck it up, and deal with the threat that band of thugs presents to the community.
Because, if I see a large armed man torturing a woman who is clearly no credible threat, I know what the immediate problem is. I also know what reasonable force doctrine tells me is a reasonable response for citizen without training and experience presented with such a situation - exactly enough force to resolve the situation without danger to bystanders or unacceptable risk to the citizen.
So for the average armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit, that would be three to the center of mass if you failed to comply with a reasonable order to "STAND DOWN, SIR!"
Understand clearly; under our Constitution, Law is not imposed by force, it exists by consent. When the use of force against citizens becomes routine, it becomes exactly the situation the constitution was enacted to prevent - and it not just authorizes, but mandates getting rid of not just the particular offenders, but all of those who employ them knowing that is what they will do.
That's the situation George Washington found himself in - and you, sir, are excusing as standard procedure the exact actions of Redcoats; in large part illiterate Hessian mercenaries who, after all, were just trying to earn a living until they were eligible for their pensions, such as they were.
And that sir, is exactly what you defend when you retreat to your "blue wall" tactics of solidarity. You are actually defending the philosophy of hired Hessian mercenaries who were not paid well enough to much care for taking risks in the line of duty, people that professional British soldiers held in contempt for good reason.
Mercenaries almost always prefer massive overkill - because it minimizes their personal risks. Of course, it also means they consider themselves separate from and not answerable to the folks they may find themselves shooting. Hell, Hessiens didn't even consider themselves part of the same physical Empire!
Now, when I see street cops expressing that same attitude, of not even being in the same empire as the ordinary schlubs they deal with every day, it seems to me that we have become two entire empires - those who get to tell the police who to beat up, and those the police get to charge with the "crime" of scuffing the officer's shoes with their objectionable asses.
And when you buy into that, you are a mercinary in the pay of would-be Earls and Kings.
So my question for you is this: Are you a cop in service to the people and the Constitution of this Grand Republic? Or are you a redcoat mercenary, jacking off to your copy of Soldier of Fortune and willing to do as you are told without conscience or question, so long as the king's schilling rings true upon the iron?
Is your ethos "to protect and to serve," or is it "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out?"
If you are the former, there is little I'm unwilling to do to support you in your duties, up to and including some personal risk on my own behalf. If you are the second - well, my forebears considered you excellent fertilizer, and so do I.
You should consider that situation deeply, because perception is everything. In order for you to do your proper job, the one we assume you signed up to do, the first thought of an average citizen should not be the desire to be suddenly elsewhere, but to welcome you and cheerfully aid you in your inquiries.
The first thought of a citizen should NOT be whether they will have to defend themselves against a police assault. They should not have to consider the possibility that they may be beaten up and than imprisoned for having protested that they were being assaulted.
Dear Lord in Heaven, the idea that it might be a better option to shoot a cop than to let a jury sort things out shouldn't cross even a criminal's mind, much less every single Black Florida citizen driving up from the keys to Miami.
But I bet it does.
And it does because people now consider their government and their police to be a potential, direct threat to their persons and their Liberty. Police abuse has become routine in the service of the interests of the powerful, people have been deliberately made reluctant to stand on their rights. But when you "send a message" to people - as was clearly part of the intent when Andrew Meyer was "dealt with" in order to prevent him from further embarrassing one of our Lords and Masters - you may not be sending quite the message you thought.
Here's another authoritarian response to the Meyer/Kerry incident and a citizen's reply.
Ok, this guy deserved what he got. Not only was he SCREAMING at a US Senator, he refused to go quietly when the police asked him to leave for acting that way. Nothing that they did was out of line. You resist arrest, you get tazered. The police had every right to do what they did.
Almost all war and strife is about access to resources - when it's not just a foolish game of pride.
Global warming? War? | hell's handmaiden: "“We will pay for this one way or another,” retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of American forces in the Middle East and one of the report’s authors, told the Los Angeles Times. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today … or we’ll pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.” Could global warming cause war? | csmonitor.com"
So that would be one of them "rhetorical questions."
As seen in this clip dating from 1994, Vice-President Dick Cheney had a very solid appreciation of the problems inherent in invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussain.
The Cheney tape re-aired for the first time since 1994 on July 11, 2007. But it wasn't until C-SPAN aired the interview again on August 9 (on the same channel, at the same time) that the blogosphere noticed.
As far as we know, the Cheney remarks on Iraq were first noticed by the site Grand Theft Country.
Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said she was not authorized to comment.
She did, however, direct us to an interview that ABC News conducted with Cheney in February of this year in which Cheney was asked how his views had changed from 1991, when he also spoke of military action in Iraq as a "quagmire."
"Well, I stand by what I said in '91," Cheney told ABC. "But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11."
But 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, and changed none of the fundamental and obvious calculations that made the invasion of Iraq an obvious, losing proposition. 9/11 was merely an opportunity, a pretext upon which to build a massive edifice of fear, panic, theft, subversion and lies, the apparent point being to create the conditions for another protracted, expensive, bloody conflict such as Vietnam for the twin goals of consolidating power and looting the treasuries of two nations.
Leaving aside the obvious - that Cheney is an evil bastard who has no fundamental objection to mass casualties when it's profitable to him - we need to look at why an effort that was untenable in '94, despite widespread right-wing demands for just such an invasion became profitable enough to go to such lengths to implement. I think we need to back up and look at the larger picture.
Warfare is a magnificent distraction - and in it's own way, a very unpopular war is an even better distraction. If you fundamentally do not care about the opinion of the American People, save as a means of manipulating them, an unpopular war is very useful tool, for it concentrates the minds of the opposition on the obvious. It casts long shadows that one may hide anything within.
So let us look back at the net effects of this administration. The first thing it did, of course, was to squander a budget surplus and start to build the most massive debt in US history, debt that is held in part in the Middle East and in part in China, due to our massive trade imbalances. Laws were passed that gave tax breaks to large corporations moving offshore - taking HUGE tax revenues with them, while monetary and credit policies were pursued that encouraged the middle class to take on unsustainable levels of personal debt. Then, the mousetrap was sprung - completely unconscionable revisions in the Bankruptcy act.
Meanwhile, the War On Terror was declared, and many steps were taken - almost none of them having any effect on actual terrorism, save to increase the potential for it, while obvious precautions, such as securing ports, rail transport and airline baggage screening were dismissed in favor of purely cosmetic harassment that had the effect of ensuring that the American people became used to being arbitrarily questioned and inconvenienced by barely competent officials of the state, often in conspicuous violation of both the Constitution and personal dignity.
The Patriot act - along with widespread, clandestine and illegal activities, such as arbitrary arrest, suspension of habius corpus and of course the quite deliberate specter of torture as one possible fate for Administration critics became part of the national consciousness, with most of us still believing that, fearful and potentially disastrous as these policies were, the idea was to combat terrorism.
But in hindsight, it's clear that our national policies have taken what was a potential threat - one worth attention and concern, but by no means something to panic about - and turned it into a world-wide emergency situation. The only conclusion I can come to reasonably is that US policy has the direct and probably intentional effect of creating conditions where terrorism will flourish, both abroad and domestically.
How will domestic terror arise as a widespread thing? Well, the first acts will likely be "black operations." But Bush's domestic policies and what appears to be a calculated campaign of focused contempt for the sensibilities and needs of the vast majority of the citizenry can be reliably expected to result in an incident here and there, at least if the pump is primed by an example or two that is suitably publicised.
And what that permits is the imposition of martial law, the suspension of elections and the Constitution itself - "for the duration of the emergency."
It is very difficult to impose a dictatorship on a wealthy, secure nation - which is what we were when President Clinton handed off the Presidency to the Shrub. Now we are a debtor nation, both personally and nationally, with such levels of debts that many of us are effectively slaves to giant corporations that are no longer headquartered in the US, making them far less accountable to US law.
What we are seeing is the engineered collapse of the US economy - and far more critically, it's position of moral and social influence over the world's population.
But I am distinctly concerned that this agenda is one that is broadly advantageous to people of power and influence within and without the Government to a degree that it pushes politics aside. To be blunt - I think it's a pretty obvious agenda by now, that the Democrats are not idiots and that they are, in essence, furthering it by offering token and ineffective resistance.
So, we must shed our illusions that we can assume that anyone in Washington is concerned about our welfare, and go back to the state and local levels to organise, resist and adjust - for the very best possible response to Washington's meddling and interference would be to ignore it.
The individual States still hold enormous economic and political power, and there are cities and metropolitan areas that in themselves wield power that many states - and indeed, many sovereign nations - would envy.
When it's clear that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to disempower citizens, it''s time for the citizens to band together and address the emergent threat - which is not terrorism. It is the Federal Government, and it needs to be reminded of and returned to it's Constitutionally intended status. The Federal Government exists because it is permitted to exist. It governs with the consent of the governed - as do all governments.
So let us be clear - if there are acts of resistance against federal power, against arbitrary federal laws, this is not terrorism, treason or disloyalty. It is the withdrawal of consent by the governed. We all have the inalienable right to say "no," providing we have the courage to face the probable consequences.
But if enough citizens in enough states demand it, there will be habius corpus, there will be safety and security. State laws and existing regional state conferences and associations will serve us as well or better than a Federal Government that has chosen to disregard it's duty.
I would suggest a simple starting point; a general passage of laws and constitutional amendments restricting unsupervised access of federal agents and agencies to anything. That, in other words, by state law, all federal agencies must comply with state oversight, so that there are witnesses. I would suggest that states assert jurisdiction over state communications networks and make wiretapping a state felony, if it is not already.) I would suggest that the various states begin investigations of and prosecutions of federal crimes against state citizens. And recall - the vast majority of the Federal Government - and most particularly, agents and employees tasked with various violations of privacy do not live within Federal preserves. The vast majority are subject to state laws and state sanctions.
Finally - and I think this should be blindingly obvious, but I suppose it needs to be said - the various States need to ensure that they are prepared for all eventualities, to face the possibility of a general collapse of central authority. They need to look to what areas of their budgets are dependent upon federal largess and make some hard choices. They need to call upon their citizens to take up the slack. Perhaps that will mean tax increases, but I would suggest that organized volunteerism in the face of emergency is a reasonable approach. Or in other words, set up a co-ordinated "Phone tree" where, in an emergency, the Governor can communicate with the state as a whole, and everyone in the state has something they are willing to do already on record, whether that be driving trucks, filling sandbags or toting a rifle.
This was the concept of the "Milita," way back when - organized LOCAL response plans that could "hold the line" against civil unrest or natural disaster until help arrived. If we have learned nothing else from Katrina and 9/11, it's that deferring to the judgment of federal responders is a very bad idea. The people who are already on the scene are the ones who know best what is needed - and to the greatest extent possible, they should have done as much pre-planning and pre-positioning as possible.
All of this has a very important goal, both long-term and short term. First, in the short-term, it may preempt attempts by the Federal government to take further steps toward restricting individual and state's rights, or even imposing direct dictatorship. In the longer term, it will make our nation more secure and less vulnerable to both terrorism and civil war.
But as much as I would like to see an outcome that sees the United States still united, with it's borders where they are now, my personal view is that we will see the US fragment into several viable nations based on culture, history and economics, and the United States will pass into history much the same way that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did - as the result of manifest centralized ineptitude combined with imperial ambitions that demanded too much of it's citizens.
The entire Administration agenda depends upon several factors, but they all boil down to us, as Citizens, being willing or at least accepting of this Brave New World Order. I think, quite frankly, that is a dangerously foolish assumption, one that only someone who's contacts are restricted to fellow-thinkers and fellow-travelers could or would contemplate. In the end, it is fundimentally unethical and unjust and therefore, as a matter of what might as well be a natural law, it will blow up in catistrophic, chaotic and unpredictable ways.
And as General Petraius has observed in Iraq - there will be no military solution.
First, a little history lesson on the justification for the Iraq war by means of deceit, deception and demagoguery.
As a result, even deeply conservative Republicans are troubled; Bruce Fein, for example, is speaking out against Bush and his badly-hidden agendas. What agendas? Well, with all the utter bullshit flying about, it's difficult to say for sure, but a few truths are emerging. Alternet is bold enough to baldly come to this conclusion about the Administration's domestic spying agenda.
The extraordinary secrecy surrounding the spying operations revealed in Alberto Gonzales' Senate testimony is not aimed at al-Qaeda, but at the American people.
They proceed to back it up with both reason and evidence, evidence based primarily on Gonzalez's awkward and obvious perjuries.
Sorry, Perjury is a legal term. Let me restate it; his lies.
Anyway, here's some reason to seriously doubt assertions that a total cloak of secrecy on the matter of the extent of domestic surveillance is vital to national security.
[T]here's no reason to think terrorists would change their behavior significantly if they knew that the U.S. government was engaged in massive data-mining operations, poring through electronic records of citizens and non-citizens alike.
The 9/11 attackers mostly stayed off the grid and many of their transactions, such as renting housing, would not alone have raised suspicions. Indeed, the patterns that deserved more attention, such as enrollment in flight-training classes and the arrival of known al-Qaeda operatives, were detected by alert FBI agents in the field but ignored by FBI officials in Washington -- and by Bush while on a month-long vacation in Texas.
Bruce Fein is far more troubled by the threat the President poses to the future of this nation than any number of Al-Queda attacks.
Via Raw story, a dry, but thorough excerpt from his statement before Congress regarding legal and constitutional issues surrounding the President's willful misinterpretation of the AUMF as justification for domestic surveillance in violation of FISA.
President Bush’s intent was to keep the program secret from Congress and to avoid political or legal accountability indefinitely. Secrecy of that sort makes checks and balances a farce. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Popular government without popular information is impossible. Neither Congress nor the American people can question or evaluate a program that is entirely unknown. Mr. Bush could have informed Congress that he was acting outside FISA without disclosing intelligence sources or methods or otherwise alerting terrorists to the need for evasive action.
Since 1978, FISA has informed the world that the United States spies on its enemies, and disclosing the fact of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program would not have added to the enemy’s knowledge on that score. That explains why the Bush administration continued the program after The New York Times’ publication. Second, President Bush’s refusal to disclose the number of Americans that have been targeted under the surveillance program and the success rate in gathering intelligence useful in thwarting terrorism from Americans targeted makes a congressional assessment of its constitutionality or wisdom impossible. Fourth Amendment reasonableness pivots in part on whether the government is on a fishing expedition hoping that something will turn up based on statistical probabilities, like breaking and entering every home in the United States because a handful of emails might be discovered showing a communication with an Al Qaeda member. Without knowing the general nature and success of the surveillance program, Congress is handicapped in fashioning new legislation or undertaking other appropriate responses.
Third, President Bush’s interpretation of the AUMF is preposterous, not simply wrong. FISA is clearly a constitutional exercise of congressional power both to protect the Bill of Rights and to regulate the power of the President to gather foreign intelligence through either electronic surveillance or physical searches during both war and peace. The necessary and proper clause in Article I authorizes Congress to legislate with regard to all powers of the United States, not simply those of the legislative branch. Congress was emphatic that FISA was intended as the exclusive method of gathering foreign intelligence through electronic surveillance or physical searches. And FISA was enacted when the United States confronted a greater danger to its existence from Soviet nuclear-tipped missiles than it does today from Al Qaeda. The argument that the AUMF was intended an exception to FISA is discredited by the following. Neither any Member of Congress not President Bush even hinted at such an interpretation in the course of its enactment, including a presidential signing statement. The interpretation would inescapably mean that the AUMF also was intended to authorize President Bush to break and enter homes, open mail, torture detainees, or even open internment camps for American citizens in violation of federal statutes in order to gather foreign intelligence. To think Congress would have intended to inflict such a gaping wound on the Bill of Rights by silence is thoroughly implausible. The AUMF argument was concocted years after its enactment. It does not represent a contemporaneous interpretation entitled to deference. Further, numerous provisions of THE PATRIOT ACT would have been superfluous if the AUMF means what President Bush now says it means. Finally, FISA is a specific statute prohibiting the gathering of foreign intelligence in both war and peace except within its terms, whereas the AUMF is silent on the issue of foreign intelligence. The specific customarily trumps the general as a matter of statutory interpretation. FISA is more definitive against the President than the failure of Congress to enact legislation in Youngstown because the former tells the Commander-in-Chief “you cannot act” whereas the latter simply said “we are not conferring this power to seize private businesses.” Fourth, President Bush has evaded judicial review of the legality of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program by refusing to use its fruits in seeking FISA warrants or in criminal prosecutions. Pending private suits are problematic because of difficult standing questions. The President’s evasion of the courts makes it proper for Congress to step into the breach to express its on view on the legality of the spying program. Fifth, President Bush’s theory of inherent prerogatives under Article II to justify warping a natural interpretation of the AUMF would reduce Congress to an ink blot in the permanent conflict with international terrorism. The President could pick and choose which statutes to obey in gathering foreign intelligence and employing battlefield tactics on the sidewalks of the United States, akin to exercising a line-item veto over FISA and its amendments.
Of course, the question to all of the above is why. What possible motive would the President have for taking these and many other steps that have alarmed a growing proportion of the informed public? Dave Lindorff, writing at Counterpunch.org, suggests that a declaration of martial law is the next step in the evolution of the President's ambitions and notes that everything is in place save an appropriate pretext.
From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress. [Emphasis Mine]
The first step, or course, was the first Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, which the president has subsequently used to claim-improperly, but so what? -that the whole world, including the US, is a battlefield in a so-called "War" on Terror, and that he has extra-Constitutional unitary executive powers to ignore laws passed by Congress. As constitutional scholar and former Reagan-era associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein observes, that one claim, that the US is itself a battlefield, is enough to allow this or some future president to declare martial law, "since you can always declare martial law on a battlefield. All he'd need would be a pretext, like another terrorist attack inside the U.S."
The 2001 AUMF was followed by the PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, which undermined much of the Bill of Rights. Around the same time, the president began a campaign of massive spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, conducted without any warrants or other judicial review. It was and remains a program that is clearly aimed at American dissidents and at the administration's political opponents, since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would never have raised no objections to spying on potential terrorists. (And it, and other government spying programs, have resulted in the government's having a list now of some 325,000 "suspected terrorists"!)
The other thing we saw early on was the establishment of an underground government-within-a-government, though the activation, following 9-11, of the so-called "Continuity of Government" protocol, which saw heads of federal agencies moved secretly to an underground bunker where, working under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, the "government" functioned out of sight of Congress and the public for critical months.
It was also during the first year following 9-11 that the Bush/Cheney regime began its programs of arrest and detention without charge-mostly of resident aliens, but also of American citizens-and of kidnapping and torture in a chain of gulag prisons overseas and at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay.
The following year, Attorney General John Ashcroft began his program to develop a mass network of tens of millions of citizen spies-Operation TIPS. That program, which had considerable support from key Democrats (notably Sen. Joe Lieberman), was curtailed by Congress when key conservatives got wind of the scale of the thing, but the concept survives without a name, and is reportedly being expanded today.
The only problem with the declaration of martial law, aside from the fairly straightforward matter of generating a suitable pretext, is the question of "you and what army." Lindorff continues:
Bruce Fein isn't an alarmist. He says he doesn't see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. "Really, by declaring the US to be a battlefield, Bush already made it possible for himself to declare martial law, because you can always declare martial law on a battlefield," he says. "All he would need would be a pretext, like another terrorist attack on the U.S."
Indeed, the revised Insurrection Act (10. USC 331-335) approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush last October, specifically says that the president can federalize the National Guard to "suppress public disorder" in the event of "national disorder, epidemic, other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident." That determination, the act states, is solely the president's to make. Congress is not involved.
Fein says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever." (It may be significant that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, has called for the revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq, but not of the earlier 2001 AUMF which Bush claims makes him commander in chief of a borderless, endless war on terror.
I've devoted extensive thought to the imposition of Martial Law and the resulting Civil War that I strongly believe it would provoke. The key to my understanding has always been the lack of available boots on the ground and the very important question as to the percentage of US forces who are willing to fire upon fellow citizens. I've mentioned this as an imponderable, simply because there is no real way to know until it happens, but I'm quite certain that obedience to presidential orders cannot be taken for granted. Lindorff concludes with the observation that, due to overuse of the existing military and an increasing resistance to continued service on the part of vital mid-level officers who would be vital to such an enterprise, it's increasingly unlikely that the president could impose martial law - at least, not upon the United States as a whole. I and many others publicy doubt the ability of the current available forces to pacify California, or even Greater Los Angeles.
But then, the Administration must be aware of that. So expect a continuation and escalation of covert actions against the American People, particularly those that present either symbolic or direct threats to the President, or to his network of backers and advocates. I particularly expect the administration to use "The Financial Death Penalty" against a number of carefully selected targets, along with an effort to keep those actions secret for as long as possible, while the Pentagon - through it's contractors, such as Blackwater - attempts to develop an "off the books" force of mercenaries that could be relied on.
I must rely on others better positioned than I am to discern how well-advanced such efforts are, if they exist, and to what degree they are feasible. But there are hints and rumors out there that covert activity is not the sole province of the President's Men. There are a lot of former military people with quite current skills who are disaffected and determined to do something.
My conclusion is that the Administration wold be well advised to put off it's apparent plans for world domination at least another generation.
But then again, when has the Administration ever profited from being well-advised?
In a curious coincidence, the day that this site published an article on the string of steps that this government has taken to put in place the legal niceties to Prepare for a Potential Declaration of Martial Law, including a sidebar on the possibility of an assassination of Pat Tillman, my site suddenly ceased allowing me to access it for any further editorial changes.
I have been in repeated contact with the help desk (sic) at Earthlink, and have been informed that the site's pages have been "Fatally Corrupted."They advised me that I might have to rebuild the site and start over.
When I pointed out that the site itself is still up and available to readers, and so should be recoverable on the server, they said that they would attempt to fix it, making it a "priority" item.
That was yesterday.
It has now been locked down for a total of 4 days.
Not sure what to make of the whole thing at this point, though it could all just be coincidence and innocent ineptness at Earthlink.
Obama still seems to think this is a question that has a political resolution - but he is opposed by those who will not abide by the results of an honest political process - should it actually occur despite their best efforts.
