Category: American Empire

The US is sleepwalking into becoming a police state, where, like a pre-Magna Carta monarch, the president can lock up anyone

By Naomi Wolf / guardian.co.uk / Published on Feb. 29, 2012

Yes, the worst things you may have heard about the National Defense Authorization Act, which has formally ended 254 years of democracy in the United States of America, and driven a stake through the heart of the bill of rights, are all really true. The act passed with large margins in both the House and the Senate on the last day of last year – even as tens of thousands of Americans were frantically begging their representatives to secure Americans’ habeas corpus rights in the final version.

It does indeed – contrary to the many flatout-false form letters I have seen that both senators and representatives sent to their constituents, misleading them about the fact that the NDAA destroys their due process rights. Under the act, anyone can be described as a ‘belligerent”.

Passed by both Congressional chambers in December, signed into law by President Obama on December 31st, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 goes into effect today, March 1, 2012.

This is the Act that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil by our government. It is the Act that allows the US military to be used as law enforcement inside the borders of the country – for the first time since the Civil War. The Act effectively disembowels the Bill of Rights – the Charter of our basic and fundamental rights as American citizens.

From now until the worst of its language is overruled or repealed, ours is not a nation ruled by those laws and provisions of rights laid down over two centuries ago, but a nation ruled by the whims of whomever is in the White House. Welcome to the end of the rule of law in this nation.

By Michael Hastings / Rolling Stone – RSN / February 29, 2012

As Occupy Wall Street spread across the nation last fall, sparking protests in more than 70 cities, the Department of Homeland Security began keeping tabs on the movement. An internal DHS report entitled “SPECIAL COVERAGE: Occupy Wall Street,” dated October of last year, opens with the observation that “mass gatherings associated with public protest movements can have disruptive effects on transportation, commercial, and government services, especially when staged in major metropolitan areas.” While acknowledging the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of OWS, the report notes darkly that “large scale demonstrations also carry the potential for violence, presenting a significant challenge for law enforcement.”

The five-page report – contained in 5 million newly leaked documents examined by Rolling Stone in an investigative partnership with WikiLeaks – goes on to sum up the history of Occupy Wall Street and assess its “impact” on everything from financial services to government facilities. Many of the observations are benign, and appear to have been culled from publicly available sources.

By Michael Boldin / Tenth Amendment Center / February 29, 2012

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

By Stop NDAA

A lawsuit against the United States government was filed this week on behalf of a group of plaintiffs that includes Pulitzer prize-winning author Chris Hedges, Professor Noam Chomsky, the Pentagon Papers’ Daniel Ellsberg, an Icelandic Parliamentarian, and three women activists engaged in work they believe will put them in imminent danger under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Defendants in the suit include President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Senator John McCain, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi and others.

Attorneys in the case Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran also asked Southern District New York Court Judge Katherine Forrest to grant a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the provisions of the NDAA that appear to contravene the US Constitution.

In tandem with this filing, an international democracy advocacy group and progressive civil liberties group have teamed up to conduct a campaign in support of a lawsuit they hope attracts hundreds of thousands of supporters – and thousands of potential plaintiffs. RevolutionTruth, a small, international, all-volunteer group dedicated to defending democratic rights, and Demand Progress, a million-member civil liberties group, are leading the charge to build a broad, transpartisan coalition of supporters of this lawsuit and to provide a platform for potential plaintiffs to be screened.

By Linda Greenhouse / The New York Times – RSN / February 23, 2012

Is there really a chance that the Supreme Court might reconsider Citizens United?

A week ago, I wouldn’t have thought so, and I still think it’s an extreme long shot. But a provocative statement last Friday by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer makes this crazy idea worth pondering – which is undoubtedly what the two justices intended.

Editor: The following is the text that was handed out by the Save the Bill of Rights coalition on February 11th at their rally in front of the State Democrats’ Convention at the Convention Center in downtown San Diego.

REPEAL THE NDAA – The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

During last December, both the US Senate and the House of Representatives passed this Act and President Obama signed it into law on December 31, 2011. It is now the law of the land.

The Act includes provisions that would allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without any recourse to legal interventions or civil rights if accused of a “belligerent act” or any terror-related offense.

These provisions mean that anyone of us – or any group of us – could be imprisoned without arraignment, without access to a lawyer, without access to habeas corpus, without a jury trial, without due process – without the protection of the Bill of Rights, our basic, fundamental rights as citizens.

By Robert Reich / Robert Reich’s Blog – RSN / February 21, 2012

Nothing drives voter sentiment like the price of gas – now averaging $3.56 a gallon, up 30 cents from the start of the year. It’s already hit $4 in some places. The last time gas topped $4 was 2008.

And nothing energizes Republicans like rising energy prices. Last week House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans to take advantage of voters’ looming anger over prices at the pump. On Thursday House Republicans passed a bill to expand offshore drilling and force the White House to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The tumult prompted the Interior Department to announce on Friday expanded oil exploration in the Arctic.

If prices at the pump continue to rise, expect more gas wars.

In fact, oil prices are rising for three reasons – none of which has to do with offshore drilling or the XL pipeline.

Editor: Author and radical observer Chris Hedges has opened up a current dialogue and debate within the Occupy Wall Street movement, in the shadow of last month’s confrontations between Occupy Oakland and the Oakland police. He points the finger at what he calls “the Black Bloc anarchists” and calls them the “cancer in Occupy.” In response to Hedges, David Graeber’s article below asserts that Hedge’s rhetoric is inaccurate and even “dangerous”.

The Cancer in Occupy

by Chris Hedges / TruthDig / Posted on Feb 6, 2012

The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe. …. (Come inside for the remainder of this article.)

By David Graeber / n+1 / Posted Feb. 9, 2012

I am writing this on the premise that you are a well-meaning person who wishes Occupy Wall Street to succeed. I am also writing as someone who was deeply involved in the early stages of planning Occupy in New York.

I am also an anarchist who has participated in many Black Blocs. While I have never personally engaged in acts of property destruction, I have on more than one occasion taken part in Blocs where property damage has occurred. (I have taken part in even more Blocs that did not engage in such tactics. It is a common fallacy that this is what Black Blocs are all about. It isn’t.)

I was hardly the only Black Bloc veteran who took part in planning the initial strategy for Occupy Wall Street. In fact, anarchists like myself were the real core of the group that came up with the idea of occupying Zuccotti Park, the “99%” slogan, the General Assembly process, and, in fact, who collectively decided that we would adopt a strategy of Gandhian non-violence and eschew acts of property damage. Many of us had taken part in Black Blocs. We just didn’t feel that was an appropriate tactic for the situation we were in. … (Come inside for the remainder of this article.)

When Power is Unaccountable

by Brian J. Trautman / CounterPunch / Originally published Jan. 18, 2012

Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversial provisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.

By Eric W. Dolan / The Raw Story / February 1, 2012

Five Republican lawmakers from Washington state have introduced legislation that condemns the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 for controversial measures regarding the detainment of terrorism suspects, according to the Tenth Amendment Center.

The $662 billion defense spending bill contained a controversial section that required terrorism suspects to be detained by the military without trial, regardless of where they were captured.

In a clear sign that grassroot activists on the left and on the right are joining together to fight the National Defense Act that President Obama signed into law on the last day of 2011, San Diego progressives and tea party groups are mobilizing starting this week in joint actions against local Congressional representatives.

Activists and organizers at both of the ideological ends of the political spectrum are extremely upset and concerned with provisions of the NDAA that will allow the government to pick up and detain American citizens indefinitely without charges and without trials.

A group in San Diego has formed the Save the Bill of Rights; they meet weekly, have a website and facebook, and are planning at least two actions in the upcoming weeks.

On Friday, February 3rd, protesters will simultaneously mobilize at both Duncan Hunter, Jr’s office in El Cajon and at Susan Davis’ office in Normal Heights. Hunter is a Republican and Davis is a Democrat. Both voted for the bill when it was before the House of Representatives. Not too long after that vote late last year, local San Diegans staged a brief sit-in at Davis’ office on Adams Avenue.