http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html
Does Truth Have A Future In America? — Paul Craig Roberts
January 2, 2013 | Original Here
This site, www.paulcraigroberts.org, is for readers. There is nothing on this site except information. The site will continue as long as readers support it.
There is no political, social, economic, or ideological agenda
associated with this site. For the most part, readers who come to this
site are capable of independent thought. They are aware that the media
is agenda-driven and full of disinformation. They realize that voters do
not control the government through the ballot box. Readers come to this
site, because they are seeking explanations that are closer to the
truth or more plausible than the self-serving ones they are given by the
media, corporations, politicians, and government officials.
This makes readers of this site unique. In my 35 years of experience
in journalism, I have found that most readers read in order to confirm
what they already think and believe. It is the same for the right-wing
and the left-wing. They cannot escape their ideological boxes and are
creatures of their biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and
their beliefs supported. A writer who tells them something that they do
not want to hear receives abuse. These readers cannot benefit from facts
and new information and change their minds. They already know
everything and only want information that supports their beliefs and
advances their agendas.
If a writer makes the case so clear that readers simply cannot avoid
it, the reader will intentionally misread the article or book and attack
the writer for saying everything that he does not say. The chorus will
join in the effort to shut down the unwelcome information before it
reaches others.
The Israel Lobby uses the technique of branding everyone who
criticizes, no matter how constructively and moderately, any Israeli
government policy, no matter how egregious, an anti-semite. The Israeli
government applies this tactic to its own Israeli political opposition
and to Jews themselves who are branded “self-hating Jews” if they
criticize government policy toward the Palestinians. The effect is to
deprive the Israeli government of constructive criticism. Only the
Israel Lobby could call former President Jimmy Carter an anti-semite.
Anyone who is not totally enthusiastic about Israel’s theft of
Palestinian lives and properties is an enemy of Israel. These wild
accusations from the Israel Lobby deprive anti-semite of any meaning.
Essentially, every moral person has become an anti-semite.
The identical hardline substitution of self-interest for factual
reality characterizes the American right and left. The right-wing
insists that America is going broke because of welfare spending. The
left-wing persists in its belief that government is capable of great
good if only the right people are in power and that social institutions,
such as religion, and inanimate objects, such as guns, are responsible
for human evil.
If a majority of Americans were like the readers of this site, truth
could prevail over special interests. Reality would inform social,
political, and economic life, and American prospects would be good. But
when a majority are hostile to facts and truths that do not support
their biases and serve their interests, there is a disconnect from
reality, which is the situation in America today.
It is ironic that the left-wing, which has a large repertoire of
tales of societies in the clutches of shamans, witch doctors and
priests, imposes its own artificial or make-believe realities on social,
political, and economic explanations. Leftists who appear to be
oblivious to the militarized murderous police state erected by Bush and
Obama still go out of their way to tell me how evil Ronald Reagan was
and that I must also be evil because I served in the Reagan
administration.
It is ironic that the Republican federal judges that the right-wing
said were so desperately needed to save the Constitution are precisely
the ones who have destroyed it. Americans can be indefinitely detained
or assassinated by their government on suspicion alone without due
process, because Republicans are enamored of the “unitary executive”
theory of presidential power. The Republican Supreme Court gave private
business corporations the right to purchase the US government in the
name of free speech, because Republicans believe private interests
should prevail over public interests.
It is easy to become discouraged by the clueless American majority.
However, as insightful people have remarked in the past, it only takes a
few determined people to change the world. On the other hand, in the
past governments did not have such technological advantages as they have
today. In a modern context, Paul Revere’s ride is hard to imagine. The
British would have shot him out of the saddle with a drone. How far
would Lenin have got if the Russian government had had spy drones
everywhere?
Perhaps our hope today is that the government’s disinformation produces unintended consequences that overwhelm the government.
Hope or no hope, truth is becoming harder to come by. During the
Vietnam war when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, the New
York Times published them. However, during the Iraq war when a National
Security Agency whistleblower leaked the information to the New York
Times that the Bush regime was spying on Americans without obtaining
warrants from the FISA court as required by law, the New York Times told
the White House and sat on the story for one full year until Bush was
reelected. The newspaper might even have turned in the whistleblower.
When the Guardian and other newspapers were threatened by the US
government, they turned on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the suppliers
of their headline stories.
To see the fate of whistleblowers, read Sibel Edmonds’ book,
Classified Woman. Few people are willing to undergo such wear and tear
in an effort to get truth to the American people.
There is another constraint on revealing truth. The human capital of
people with inside knowledge is destroyed if they speak out. Position,
contacts, invitations, income, and social life are all forfeited when an
insider becomes a dissenter or a truth-teller. Only the extremely naive
can believe that governments cannot keep conspiracies a secret,
“because someone would talk.” No one talks, because talking harms the
personal interests and human capital of the insider, and seldom does any
good.
Al Jazeera was founded in the closing years of the 20th century to
provide more objective news coverage of the Middle East than the spun
news coverage of the Western media. The news organization soon fell
afoul of Washington and its Middle Eastern puppet states and was reined
in by censorship, threats, and actual physical attacks by US military
forces on its Kabul and Baghdad offices.
Truth-tellers are inconvenient. Major General Antonio Taguba was
given the assignment of conducting the official inquiry into the Abu
Ghraib prisoner abuse. Instead of covering up the incidents as he was
expected to do for his third star, he produced a professional and
truthful report. It was Taguba’s career that was terminated, not the
careers of those responsible for the illegal torture of prisoners. Gen.
Taguba was instructed to resign by Gen. Richard Cody, the Vice-Chief of
Staff of the Army. When told that he was going to be investigated,
Taguba said, “I’d been in the Army 32 years by then, and it was the
first time that I thought I was in the Mafia.”
General Benton K. Partin, the US Air Force’s munitions expert, wrote
to Senator Trent Lott on July 30, 1995: “The attached report contains
conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck
bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the
result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points
at the third floor level.” http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm
Partin was Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory
and had ultimate responsibility for all nonnuclear weapons in the Air
Force. His report fell on deaf ears and disappeared down the memory
hole.
So did the report of University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels
Harrit, a member of a team of scientists who found reacted and unreacted
nano-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center towers. The
findings of this scientific team are known in Europe and Canada, but
were not reported by the US media. Anyone who still believes the
official story of 9/11 should listen to the interview with this
accomplished scientist or read, if able, the scientific paper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3Se86IBAw
They should also read the 9/11 Toronto Report: International Hearings
on the Events of September 11, 2001. Hearings were held at a Canadian
university in Toronto on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks at
which experts and professionals presented evidence that the official
story of 9/11 is improbable. The hearings were conducted as if they were
a grand jury proceeding before a panel of judges consisting of
accomplished scholars and Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the Honorary
President of the Supreme Court of Italy. Judge Imposimato cut his teeth
as the “scourge of the Mafia.” His cases involved the kidnapping and
murder of Italian President Aldo Moro, the attempted assassination of
Pope John Paul II, and the Mafia assassination of Carabinieri General
Carlo Alberto Della Chiesa.
Judge Imposimato concluded, as did the other accomplished members of
the panel, that “the omissions of relevant evidence in the NIST
investigation and the investigation of the Pentagon, their
contradictions and the lack of independence and impartiality, as a body
controlled by the Bush administration, requires an impartial,
independent scientific investigation group.”
As far as I am able to ascertain, the Toronto Hearings and the
decisions based on evidence alone by the panel of judges was never
reported in the US media. Not a single member of the US Congress raised
even one question. The American presstitutes were utterly silent.
The country in which we live is one in which the available
information consists of the government’s lies. Information in the
alternative media does not have a track record with the wider public.
Some of the sites are too loony to be taken seriously, and the
information provided by credible sites is too different from what the
public hears from the print and TV media for the public to take it
seriously. I have wondered if governments are behind the worst sites in
order to discredit alternative media.
Government agencies and corporations recognize the threat posed to
their control of explanations by internet writers and hire “trolls” to
use the comment sections of sites to discredit truth-tellers. The
combination of trolls and readers who only want to hear what they want
to hear can bury the truths that try to emerge.
The year 2012 consisted of a continuous sequence of destructive acts
by Congress and the White House. In a final destructive act, the Senate
passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013. This act
continues the unconstitutional grant of power to the executive branch to
violate all rights of US citizens. In the US laws cannot take
precedence over the Constitution. Yet, we now have successive National
Defense Authorization Acts that render the Bill of Rights moot.
There is no public uproar over the idea that national defense
requires that US citizens lose the protection of law that is granted by
the US Constitution. When citizens stand defenseless before their own
government, what national defense do they have?
The obvious conclusion is that most Americans are indifferent to liberty and are content with tyranny.
I am not indifferent. I cannot promise to always be right and never
make a mistake, but with your financial and moral support, truth will
continue to have a future on this site.
One 77-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the neocon wars, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."

Showing posts with label NDAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NDAA. Show all posts
Thursday, January 03, 2013
In this column, Paul Craig Roberts reflects on the natures of the people who visit his web site, lamenting that most of those who stumble upon it are looking for confirmation of things that they already believe in. He emphasizes that such biases pertain to both right- and left-wingers and uses the example of left-wingers rejecting his views when they discover that he was a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet. Being a progressive democrat myself, I may be "the exception that proves the rule": My esteem for Reagan rose considerably just by knowing that he sought out Dr. Roberts' wisdom. The people (like me) who return to his site are looking for the truths that they know the "mainstream" media have not, and never will, touch. The most important of these truths is what really happened on 9/11/2001. In this context, Dr. Roberts mentions a scientific publication with lead author Niels Harrit reporting the presence of a large quantity of military grade thermite (an explosive) in the dust of the fallen World Trade Center towers. As it happens, I was one of the peer reviewers of that excellent paper. (Find out more about this in the link below.)
Monday, August 13, 2012
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: "THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS DEGENERATED INTO A POLICE STATE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TEN YEARS SHOULD BE THE CAMPAIGN ISSUE."
The Next Election: High Stake Outcomes Based on Non-issues.
The election of the next puppet president of the “world’s only superpower” is about two and one-half months off, and what are the campaign issues? There aren’t any worthy of the name.
Romney won’t release his tax returns, despite the fact that release is a customary and expected act. Either the non-release is a strategy to suck in Democrats to make the election issue allegations that Romney is another mega-rich guy who doesn’t pay taxes, only to have the issue collapse with a late release that shows enormous taxes paid, or Romney’s tax returns, as a candidate who advocates lower taxes for the rich, don’t bear scrutiny.
What are Romney’s issues? The candidate says that his first act will
be to repeal Obamacare, a program that Romney himself first enacted as
governor of Massachusetts. This will cost Romney political contributions
from the insurance industry, which is thankful for the 50 million new
private insurance policies that Obamacare, written not by Obama but by
the private insurance companies, provides at public expense. It is not
to the insurance industry’s benefit to have a single payer system like
other western countries.
Romney’s other issue is to blame Obama for America’s unemployment
caused by the offshoring of the US economy by Republican corporate CEOs.
In order to enhance their compensation packages, the Republican CEOs
sent millions of America’s best jobs to India, China and elsewhere. The
lower cost of labor in these offshore sites means much higher earnings,
which drives up share prices for shareholders and drives up performance
bonuses for management, while wrecking US employment, GDP growth and tax
base and driving up the deficit in the balance of payments.
America’s main economic problem–the relocation of the US economy
offshore–is not a campaign issue. Therefore, the US economy’s main
problem will remain unaddressed.
The real issues can nowhere be found in the campaigns or in the
media. There is no mention of the Bush/Obama destruction of the US
Constitution and its legal protections of citizens from arbitrary
government power. Due process no longer exists for anyone who the
executive branch suspects of being connected in any way to Washington’s
chosen enemies. US citizens can be thrown into dungeons for life on
suspicion alone without any evidence ever being presented to a court,
and they can be executed any place on earth, along with whoever happens
to be with them at the time, on suspicion alone.
Last May federal district court judge Katherine Forrest ruled that
indefinite detention of US citizens is unconstitutional and issued an
injunction against the Obama regime using this police state measure in
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Obama regime gave the
federal judge the finger. During the week of August 6-10 the Justice
(sic) Department’s Brownshirt lawyers refused to tell Judge Forrest if
the Obama regime is complying with the injunction. The position of the
Obama regime is: “we are above the law and do not answer to federal
courts.” One would think that Romney would be all over this, but he
isn’t because he wants the power himself. (http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction-tangerine-detention-376/print/)
The Obama police state will shop around and find a federal appeals
court dominated by Republican Brownshirt judges and get Judge Forrest’s
ruling overturned. All those Republican federal judges we had to have to
save us from liberal Democrats will now complete our deliverance to a
total police state where all power rests in an unaccountable executive
branch.This is what the Republican Federalist Society has wanted for
years, and they are on the verge of obtaining it.
That the United States has degenerated into a police state in the
short period of ten years should be the campaign issue. Who would ever
have thought such a thing possible. Yet, there is no mention of the
destruction of the rule of law in the name of a hoax “war on terror.”
The Bush regime created the propaganda that “they (Muslims) hate us
for our freedom and democracy,” but how can Muslims hate us for what
does not exist? The arbitrary unaccountable power asserted by the
executive branch is totally incompatible with freedom and democracy.
Yet, neither Obama nor Romney makes this an issue. And neither does the
media.
There is no war on terror. There is war on countries that are not
Washington’s puppet states. Unaccountable Washington is currently
slaughtering thousands of Muslims in a variety of countries and is
preparing Syria as its next holocaust. Washington, taking advantage of
the splits between Sunnis and Shi’ites and between Islamists and secular
Muslims, has organized a rebellion in Syria in order to overthrow a
government that is not a puppet of Washington and Israel.
Among the foreigners streaming into Syria to overthrow the secular
state in which Sunni and Shia Arabs have lived peacefully, are the
Islamist extremists that Washington has squandered $6 trillion fighting
for 11 years. The extremists are on Washington’s side. They want the
secular Syrian government overthrown, because it is not an Islamic
government.
This suits Washington’s policy, so now the taxes extracted from
hard-pressed Americans are flowing to the Islamists that Americans have
been fighting.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations on August 8, Obama’s
national security aid John Brennan defended the diversion of American
taxpayers’ money to the outside forces Washington has organized,
financed and provided with military weapons to overthrow the government
of Syria. John Brennan said, with a straight face, that the Obama
administration is careful that the financial and military aid does not
go to the rebels affiliated with al Qaeda. Brennan has to make this
claim, because the Obama regime, being in cahoots with al Qaeda, is in
violation of its own NDAA and is subject to arrest and indefinite
detention.
Does anyone believe that Washington, determined to overthrow the
Syrian government, is refusing to arm the most effective part of the
fighting force that is involved? Is there anyone so naive not to know
that military aid to “rebels” is fungible?
Having suffered damage to its superpower reputation by being fought
to a standoff by a few thousand al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Washington learned that the trick was to employ al Qaeda not as an
enemy but as an ally.
The test case was in Libya, where the US-al Qaeda alliance worked to
overthrow the Libyan government. The advantage for Washington is that
Libya is now beset by warring factions and is no longer a country that
could get in Washington’s way.
Libya is the roadmap for Syria.
Syria made its mistake when it thought it could pacify Washington by
taking Washington’s side in the first war against Iraq, thus confirming
for Washington that Arabs are incapable of sticking together and thus
are an easy mark to be overthrown.
If Syria falls, Washington will have murdered yet another nation.
But this is not a part of the presidential debate. Both candidates
agree that Washington should prevail in establishing a puppet state in
Syria. Even Amnesty International has been suborned and lends its
influence to the demonization of the Syrian government. Only the US is
moral, indispensable, virtuous, humane, a light upon mankind. By
definition, any opponent chosen by Washington is debauched, evil,
sinful, a country that suppresses dissent and tortures its opponents,
something Washington would never do, being, of course, the “light unto
the world.”
Unlike the 1957 plot by British Prime Minister Harald Macmillan and
US President Dwight Eisenhower to foment an “uprising” in Syria and
assassinate the Syrian leadership (see http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32254),
the Obama administration cloaks its intervention in humanitarian
language, as do the rebels while they murder and execute civilians who
support the Assad government. The presstitute western media describes
the mayhem and murder as “humanitarian intervention,” and the
brainwashed western public reposes in its moral superiority.
After Syria is destroyed, the last independent country in the region
is Iran. Iran has also been weakened, not by Washington’s embargo, an
act of war in itself, but by Washington’s financing of the “Green
Revolution.” Iran now has a fifth column within itself.
Iran, the second oldest country after China, is now surrounded by 40
or more US military bases and is confronted by four US fleets in its own
Persian Gulf.
There is a large number of nominal Muslims interested only in money
and power who are working with Washington to overthrow the Syrian and
Iranian governments.
If Iran falls, with both Russia and China surrounded by US missiles
and military bases, the world as we know it will enter its final stage.
Will Russia and China, having sacrificed all their buffers without a
fight, surrender and be content to be ruled by puppet governments, or
will they resist?
Don’t expect the packaged political campaign of the next couple of
months to deal with any significant issue. Americans are oblivious of
their fate, and so apparently is the rest of the world.
The selection of the next president of the US will depend on one
thing alone–which of the two candidates financed by the ruling private
oligarchy has the most effective propaganda.
Whether you vote Republican or Democrat, the oligarchs will win.
Labels:
al Qaeda,
Campaign,
China,
CIA,
Constitution,
Election,
Forrest,
Iran,
mainstream media complicity,
NDAA,
obama,
Obamacare,
oligarchy,
police state,
presidential election 2012,
propaganda,
Romney,
Russia,
Syria
Friday, May 25, 2012
LATEST ON THE NDAA (SEE YESTERDAY'S POST): NOW IDIOTS IN CONGRESS THINK WE SHOULD TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION AND FORFIT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY ILLEGAL ALIENS SUSPECTED OF BEING "TERRORISTS" WILL BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. "WE MUST DESTROY THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SAVE IT"?
theREALnews Permalink
May 24, 2012
House Votes Down NDAA Amendment to End Indefinite Detention
Federal judge calls for an injunction on NDAA's indefinite detention provision
Thursday, May 24, 2012
SOME GOOD NEWS FOR A CHANGE: A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED IN FAVOR OF A LAWSUIT ALEGING THAT THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (NDAA) SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, BY AUTHORIZING ARREST AND INDEFINITE DETENTION BY THE U.S. MILITARY OF ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN ANYWHERE, VIOLATES THE PLAINTIFF'S 1ST AND 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 02:14 PM -0700
Federal court enjoins NDAA
An Obama-appointed judge rules its indefinite detention provisions likely violate the 1st and 5th Amendments
By Glenn Greenwald![]() |
President Obama (Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster) |
(updated below)
A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.
As for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities. As the court explained (h/t Charles Michael):
Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”
Independently, the court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the NDAA violates their Fifth Amendment due process rights because the statute is so vague that it is virtually impossible to know what conduct could subject one to indefinite detention. Specifically, the court focused on the NDAA’s authorization to indefinitely detain not only Al Qaeda members, but also members of so-called “associated forces” and/or anyone who “substantially supports” such forces, and noted:
First, “by its terms, the AUMF is tied directly and only to those involved in the events of 9/11,” whereas the NDAA “has a non-specific definition of ‘covered person’ that reaches beyond those involved in the 9/11 attacks by its very terms.” Second, “the individuals or groups at issue in the AUMF are also more specific than those at issue in § 1021″ of the NDAA; that’s because the AUMF covered those “directly involved in the 9/11 attacks while those in § 1021 [of the NDAA] are specific groups and ‘associated forces’.” Moreover, “the Government has not provided a concrete, cognizable set of organizations or individuals that constitute ‘associated forces,’ lending further indefiniteness to § 1021.” Third, the AUMF is much more specific about how one is guilty of “supporting” the covered Terrorist groups, while the NDAA is incredibly broad and un-specific in that regard, thus leading the court to believe that even legitimate activities could subject a person to indefinite detention.
The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement – expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers — solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.”
The court concluded by taking note of what is indeed the extraordinary nature of her ruling, but explained it this way:
UPDATE: I really should mention the rest of the plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit beyond the four well-known ones I named above, because each deserves immense credit for doing this. Alexa O’Brien is an independent journalist who writes for WL Central, regarding WikiLeaks, Guantanamo and other issues, and founded a website to work on America’s corrupted elections, U.S. Day of Rage. Kai Wargalla is a British activist who founded Occupy London and has done extensive work in advocating for WikiLeaks. Jennifer Bolen, who along with Hedges spearheaded the organization of this lawsuit, is an activist with Revolution Truth who did substantial work to defeat the NDAA.
Though I knew a fair amount about it as it proceeded, I hadn’t written about this lawsuit before, largely because I did not expect it to succeed; I anticipated that it would be dismissed on “standing” grounds, the favored tactic (along with the State Secrets privilege) for both the Bush and Obama DOJs to persuade federal courts not to even adjudicate constitutional challenges to the War on Terror powers. Serious kudos to all of the plaintiffs and lawyers here who persevered in what I’m certain they knew would be an uphill battle.
A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.
As for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities. As the court explained (h/t Charles Michael):
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that § 1021 already has impacted their associational and expressive activities–and would continue to impact them, and that § 1021 is vague to such an extent that it provokes fear that certain of their associational and expressive activities could subject them to indefinite or prolonged military detention.The court found that the plaintiffs have “shown an actual fear that their expressive and associational activities” could subject them to indefinite detention under the law,and “each of them has put forward uncontroverted evidence of concrete — non-hypothetical — ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities” (as but one example, Hedges presented evidence that his “prior journalistic activities relating to certain organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” proves “he has a realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021″). Thus, concluded the court, these plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet been detained under it; that’s because its broad, menacing detention powers are already harming them and the exercise of their constitutional rights.
Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”
Independently, the court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the NDAA violates their Fifth Amendment due process rights because the statute is so vague that it is virtually impossible to know what conduct could subject one to indefinite detention. Specifically, the court focused on the NDAA’s authorization to indefinitely detain not only Al Qaeda members, but also members of so-called “associated forces” and/or anyone who “substantially supports” such forces, and noted:
Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their vagueness challenge. The terms upon which they focused at the hearing relate to who is a “covered person.” In that regard, plaintiffs took issue with the lack of definition and clarity regarding who constitutes an “associated forces,” and what it means to “substantially” or “directly” “support” such forces or, al-Qaeda or the Taliban. . . .Perhaps most importantly, the court categorically rejected the central defense of this odious bill from the Obama administration and its defenders: namely, that it did nothing more than the 2001 AUMF already did and thus did not really expand the Government’s power of indefinite detention. The court cited three reasons why the NDAA clearly expands the Government’s detention power over the 2001 AUMF (all of which I previously cited when denouncing this bill).
The Government was unable to define precisely what ”direct” or “substantial” “support” means. . . .Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.
First, “by its terms, the AUMF is tied directly and only to those involved in the events of 9/11,” whereas the NDAA “has a non-specific definition of ‘covered person’ that reaches beyond those involved in the 9/11 attacks by its very terms.” Second, “the individuals or groups at issue in the AUMF are also more specific than those at issue in § 1021″ of the NDAA; that’s because the AUMF covered those “directly involved in the 9/11 attacks while those in § 1021 [of the NDAA] are specific groups and ‘associated forces’.” Moreover, “the Government has not provided a concrete, cognizable set of organizations or individuals that constitute ‘associated forces,’ lending further indefiniteness to § 1021.” Third, the AUMF is much more specific about how one is guilty of “supporting” the covered Terrorist groups, while the NDAA is incredibly broad and un-specific in that regard, thus leading the court to believe that even legitimate activities could subject a person to indefinite detention.
The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement – expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers — solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.”
The court concluded by taking note of what is indeed the extraordinary nature of her ruling, but explained it this way:
This Court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution. However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.I’ve been very hard on the federal judiciary in the past year due to its shameful, craven deference in the post-9/11 world to executive power and, especially, attempts to prosecute Muslims on Terrorism charges. But this is definitely an exception to that trend. This is an extraordinary and encouraging decision. All the usual caveats apply: this is only a preliminary injunction (though the court made it clear that she believes plaintiffs will ultimately prevail). It will certainly be appealed and can be reversed. There are still other authorities (including the AUMF) which the DOJ can use to assert the power of indefinite detention. Nonetheless, this is a rare and significant limit placed on the U.S. Government’s ability to seize ever-greater powers of detention-without-charges, and it is grounded in exactly the right constitutional principles: ones that federal courts and the Executive Branch have been willfully ignoring for the past decade.
UPDATE: I really should mention the rest of the plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit beyond the four well-known ones I named above, because each deserves immense credit for doing this. Alexa O’Brien is an independent journalist who writes for WL Central, regarding WikiLeaks, Guantanamo and other issues, and founded a website to work on America’s corrupted elections, U.S. Day of Rage. Kai Wargalla is a British activist who founded Occupy London and has done extensive work in advocating for WikiLeaks. Jennifer Bolen, who along with Hedges spearheaded the organization of this lawsuit, is an activist with Revolution Truth who did substantial work to defeat the NDAA.
Though I knew a fair amount about it as it proceeded, I hadn’t written about this lawsuit before, largely because I did not expect it to succeed; I anticipated that it would be dismissed on “standing” grounds, the favored tactic (along with the State Secrets privilege) for both the Bush and Obama DOJs to persuade federal courts not to even adjudicate constitutional challenges to the War on Terror powers. Serious kudos to all of the plaintiffs and lawyers here who persevered in what I’m certain they knew would be an uphill battle.
Glenn Greenwald (email: GGreenwald@salon.com) is a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator and is the author of three New York Times Bestselling books: two on the Bush administration's executive power and foreign policy abuses, and his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, an indictment of America's two-tiered system of justice. Greenwald was named by The Atlantic as one of the 25 most influential political commentators in the nation. He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and is the winner of the 2010 Online Journalism Association Award for his investigative work on the arrest and oppressive detention of Bradley Manning.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Permalink
Uploaded by libertylover520 on Jan 18, 2012
Uploaded by libertylover520 on Jan 18, 2012
The first state to rebel against indefinite detention
libertylover520 Uploaded by libertylover520 on Jan 18, 2012
Indefinite Detention The NDAA and the Enemy Expatriation Act
libertylover520 Uploaded by libertylover520 on Jan 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
January 17, 2012
Journalist Chris Hedges Sues Obama Admin over Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Approved in NDAA
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges has filed suit against President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Sections of the bill are written so broadly that critics say they could encompass journalists who report on terror-related issues, such as Hedges, for supporting enemy forces. "It’s clearly unconstitutional," Hedges says of the bill. "It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing." We speak with Hedges, now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute and former New York Times foreign correspondent who was part of a team of reporters that was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. We are also joined by Hedges’ attorney Carl Mayer, who filed the litigation on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Original Democracy Now source
Original TruthDig article.
Friday, December 16, 2011
*Countdown with Keith ...: Rep. Jerrold Nadler decries Obama for not vetoing National Defense Bill
http://youtu.be/GnsDenUhU6A
Published on Dec 15, 2011 by Current
Keith and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) question President Obama's decision not to honor his threat to veto disputed provisions about the treatment of terrorism prisoners, which passed the House today as SEC. 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R.1540). The bill allows American citizens to be indefinitely detained, without trial, on American soil if there is even a suspicion they have ties to terrorists. "That's quite a terrible blow to American liberty," says Nadler.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
. 
I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.
They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.
Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.
Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini’s former colleagues in Parliament — as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler’s Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the ‘other.’ Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin’s Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor.
Is this intimidation and arrest by the military a vestige of the past? Hardly. We forget in America that all over the world there are militarized societies in which shells of democracy are propped up — in which Parliament meets regularly and elections are held, but the generals are really in charge, just as the Egyptian military is proposing with upcoming elections and the Constitution itself. That is exactly what will take place if Congress gives the power of arrest and detention to the military: and in those societies if a given political leader does not please the generals, he or she is in physical danger or subjected to military arrest. Whom did John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, say he was directed to intimidate and threaten when he worked as a ‘jackal’, putting pressure on the leadership in authoritarian countries? Latin American parliamentarians who were in the position to decide the laws that affected the well-being of his corporate clients. Who is under house arrest by the military in Myanmar? The political leader of the opposition to the military junta. Malalai Joya is an Afghani parliamentarian who has run afoul of the military and has to sleep in a different venue every night — for her own safety. An on, and on, in police states — that is, countries with military detention of civilians — that America is about to join.
US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.
Biography
Author, social critic, and political activist Naomi Wolf raises awareness of the pervasive inequities that exist in society and politics. She encourages people to take charge of their lives, voice their concerns and enact change.
Wolf’s landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, challenged the cosmetics industry and the marketing of unrealistic standards of beauty, launching a new wave of feminism in the early 1990s. The New York Times called it one of the most important books of the 20th century. Her next book, Vagina: A Cultural History, will be released in 2012.
Wolf’s New York Times bestseller, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, is an impassioned call to return to the aspirations and beliefs of the Founders’ ideals of liberty. The New York Times called the documentary version “pointedly inflammatory.” Her latest book, Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, includes effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement and create sustainable democracy.
Her international journalism includes the investigative report “Guantánamo Bay: The Inside Story” for The Times of London, and as a columnist for Project Syndicate her articles have been published in India, Philippines, Egypt, and Lebanon. She’s a frequent blogger on The Huffington Post and writes cultural commentary for The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Harper’s Bazaar. Her TV appearances include Larry King Live, Meet the Press, The Joyce Behar Show, and The Colbert Report.
A graduate of Yale and a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, Wolf was a consultant to Al Gore during his presidential campaign on women’s issues and social policy. She is co-founder of The Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership, an organization that teaches leadership to young women, and The American Freedom Campaign, a grass roots democracy movement in the United States whose mission is the defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.

How Congress is Signing It's own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest bill
Published: December 12th, 2011 Author: naomi
I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.
They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.
Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.
Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini’s former colleagues in Parliament — as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler’s Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the ‘other.’ Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin’s Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor.
Is this intimidation and arrest by the military a vestige of the past? Hardly. We forget in America that all over the world there are militarized societies in which shells of democracy are propped up — in which Parliament meets regularly and elections are held, but the generals are really in charge, just as the Egyptian military is proposing with upcoming elections and the Constitution itself. That is exactly what will take place if Congress gives the power of arrest and detention to the military: and in those societies if a given political leader does not please the generals, he or she is in physical danger or subjected to military arrest. Whom did John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, say he was directed to intimidate and threaten when he worked as a ‘jackal’, putting pressure on the leadership in authoritarian countries? Latin American parliamentarians who were in the position to decide the laws that affected the well-being of his corporate clients. Who is under house arrest by the military in Myanmar? The political leader of the opposition to the military junta. Malalai Joya is an Afghani parliamentarian who has run afoul of the military and has to sleep in a different venue every night — for her own safety. An on, and on, in police states — that is, countries with military detention of civilians — that America is about to join.
US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.
Biography
Author, social critic, and political activist Naomi Wolf raises awareness of the pervasive inequities that exist in society and politics. She encourages people to take charge of their lives, voice their concerns and enact change.
Wolf’s landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, challenged the cosmetics industry and the marketing of unrealistic standards of beauty, launching a new wave of feminism in the early 1990s. The New York Times called it one of the most important books of the 20th century. Her next book, Vagina: A Cultural History, will be released in 2012.
Wolf’s New York Times bestseller, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, is an impassioned call to return to the aspirations and beliefs of the Founders’ ideals of liberty. The New York Times called the documentary version “pointedly inflammatory.” Her latest book, Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, includes effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement and create sustainable democracy.
Her international journalism includes the investigative report “Guantánamo Bay: The Inside Story” for The Times of London, and as a columnist for Project Syndicate her articles have been published in India, Philippines, Egypt, and Lebanon. She’s a frequent blogger on The Huffington Post and writes cultural commentary for The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Harper’s Bazaar. Her TV appearances include Larry King Live, Meet the Press, The Joyce Behar Show, and The Colbert Report.
A graduate of Yale and a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, Wolf was a consultant to Al Gore during his presidential campaign on women’s issues and social policy. She is co-founder of The Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership, an organization that teaches leadership to young women, and The American Freedom Campaign, a grass roots democracy movement in the United States whose mission is the defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Occupy Wall Street, It's time to fix this broken machine.
Senator Levin reveals: It was Obama who required the Indefinite Detainment Bill (NDAA) to INCLUDE ‘U.S. Citizens being held without rights’ as part of the wording!
Posted on December 12, 2011 by paul
We now know, for those that have been holding out in “hope” that Obama will veto the 1031 Indefinite Detainment Bill (NDAA) against holding U.S. Citizens indefinitely without rights to a trial or lawyer or charges… it was Obama who required the bill have the language ‘U.S. Citizens being held without rights’ included in the bill! This bill will pass if it goes in front of Obama for his signature.
Contact your State Representative:
http://writerep.house.gov/writerep/ In your correspondence with your Representative, please mention the following facts. Too many journalists are still confused on these points — please let them know too:
- The bill passed by Congress absolutely DOES NOT exempt citizens. Section 1031 reads, “A covered person under this section” includes “any person who has committed a belligerent act”.
- The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading. Don’t be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), “Nothing in this section shall be construed…”, the only word that matters is “construed” — the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031.
- Confusingly, Obama previously threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 does NOT concern imprisoning citizens without a trial. He has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment. In fact, Section 1031 citizen imprisonment without trial was requested by the Obama administration. See the video proof here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8
What is the National Defense Authorization act or NDAA?
Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act
Friday, December 09, 2011
theREALnews Permalink
December 9, 2011
Wilkerson: New Military Powers the Road to Tyranny
Larry Wilkerson: National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate giving the military power for indefinite detention without trial is a draconian violation of our rights
Bio
Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled "National Security Decision Making."
Thursday, December 08, 2011
THE NATIONAL DEFENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT (PASSED BY SENATE AND NOW BEING CONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE) WOULD AUTHORIZE THE ARMY TO ARREST U.S. CITIZENS, REVERSING 133 YEARS OF U.S. HISTORY, AND IS "VERY, VERY REMINISCENT OF REGULATIONS INTRODUCED IN NAZI GERMANY IN 1933" -- FORMER CIA AGENT RAY MCGOVERN
theREALnews Permalink
Military to Gain Power of Indefinite Detention in Senate Bill
Ray McGovern: Amendment to NDAA gives military the right to operate on American soil, detain people without trial for an indefinite period of time including US citizens
Bio
Ray McGovern is a retired CIA officer. McGovern was employed under seven US presidents for over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. McGovern was born and raised in the Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Fordham University, received an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham, a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University, and graduated from Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program. McGovern now works for “Tell the Word," a ministry of the inner-city/Washington Church of the Saviour, which sent him forth four weeks ago to join other Justice people on "The Audacity of Hope," the U.S. Boat to Gaza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)