Bob's Youtube

1watch

Listen Live And Chat

1livechat

About

1about

The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support

Commentary, News // Dec 2 2011

By Madison Ruppert

Editor of End the Lie

An official US Navy photograph of detainees at Camp X-Ray at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If our government makes the call, this could be the horrific reality for countless American citizensfor untold years or even decades (Credit: U.S. Navy/Shane T. McCoy)

This is one of the most tragic events I have written about since establishing End the Lie over eight months ago: the horrendous bill that would turn all of America into a battlefield and subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without charge or trial has passed the Senate.

To make matters even worse, only seven of our so-called representatives voted against the bill, proving once and for all (if anyone had any doubt remaining) that our government does not work for us in any way, shape, or form.

S.1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012, passed with a resounding 93-7 vote.

That’s right, 93 of our Senators voted to literally eviscerate what little rights were still protected after the PATRIOT Act was hastily pushed in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001.

The NDAA cuts Pentagon spending by $43 billion from last year’s budget, a number so insignificant when compared to the $662 billion still (officially) allocated, it is almost laughable.

The bill also contained an amendment which enacts strict new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and any entities that do business with it, a move which will likely have brutal repercussions for the Iranian people – just like the sanctions on Iraq did.

Not a single Senator voted against this amendment, which was voted on soon before the entirety of S.1867 was passed, despite the hollow threats of a veto from the Obama White House.

Based simply on historical precedent, I trust Obama’s promises as much as I trust the homeless man who told me he was John F. Kennedy.

I wish that I could believe that the Obama administration would strike down this horrific bill but I would be quite ignorant and naïve if I did so.

Furthermore, the White House’s official statement doesn’t even say that they will veto the bill. In fact, it says, “the President’s senior advisers [will] recommend a veto.”

As Glenn Greenwald points out, the objection isn’t even about opposing the detention of accused terrorists without a trial, instead it is the contention that, “whether an accused Terrorist is put in military detention rather than civilian custody is for the President alone to decide.”

Obama’s opposition has nothing to do with the rule of law or protecting Americans, in fact, Senator Levin disclosed and Dave Kopel reported that, “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power”.

As I have detailed in two past articles entitled Do not be deceived: S.1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act and S.1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial, the assurances that this will not be used on American citizensare hollow, evidenced by the fact that the Feinstein amendment to S.1867, amendment number 1126, which, according to the official Senate Democrats page, was an attempt at “prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens” was rejected with a 45-55 vote.

Let’s examine some of the attempts to convince the American people that this will not change anything and that we will still be protected under law.

Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Antonio said, “In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in section 1031 that says that this includes ‘any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.’ This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.”

While this might sound reassuring to some, one must realize that the government can interpret just about anything as engaging “in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.

Consider the fact that the Homeland Security Police Institute’s report published earlier this year partly focused on combating the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative” which sets the stage for the government being able to declare that spreading the narrative amounts to “a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.

At the time I wrote:

Part of these domestic efforts highlighted in the report is combating the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative” but never addressed is why exactly extremist groups have the ability to spread their narrative.

A frightening conclusion that can be drawn from the focus on the “spread of the entity’s narrative” is that such claims could be used to justify limiting the American right to free speech.

It would be very easy to justify eliminating free speech if much of the United States was convinced of the danger of spreading terrorist narrative.

The report doesn’t specifically explain what the narrative is or why it is so dangerous, but one could assume that any anti-government, anti-war, anti-corporatist and pro-human rights speech could be squeezed under this umbrella. Essentially, anything that criticizes or questions the United States could easily be demonized because it is allegedly spreading “the entity’s narrative”.

This raises an important question: could my work and the work of others devoted to exposing the fraud that is the “war on terror” and the intimate links between our government and the terrorist entities they are supposedly fighting be considered to be supporting these entities?

Unfortunately, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is possible for the following reasons:

1) The Department of Defense actually put a question on an examination saying that protests are an act of “low-level terrorism” (which they later deleted after the ACLU sent a letter demanding it be removed).

2) Anti-war activists and websites are deemed worthy of being treated as terrorists and being listed on terrorist watchlists.

3) We likely will never even be told how exactly the government is interpreting S.1867.

In the case of the PATRIOT Act (which is overwhelmingly used in cases that are unrelated to terrorism in every way), there is in fact a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, as revealed by Senator Ron Wyden back in May.

In October, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit (read the PDF here) in an attempt to force the government to reveal the details of the secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act.

As of now, we still do not know how the PATRIOT Act is interpreted by the government, meaning that we have no idea how it is actually being used.

I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make the assumption that S.1867 would be interpreted in a straightforward manner, meaning that all of the assurances being made by Senators are worthless.

Glenn Greenwald verifies this in writing the following as an update to the post previously quoted in this article, “Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to confine military detention to those apprehended “abroad,” i.e., off U.S. soil — failed by a vote of 45-55.”

Furthermore, as I detailed in my previous coverage of S.1867, Senator Lindsey Graham clearly said, in absolutely no uncertain terms whatsoever, “In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland.”

The fact that the establishment media continues to peddle the blatant lie that is the claim that S.1867 will not be used on American citizens is beyond me.

This is especially true when one considers the fact that lawyers for the Obama administrations reaffirmed that American citizens “are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida,” although we all know that no proof or trial is required to make that assertion.

As evidenced by the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, no trial is needed for our illegitimate government to assassinate an American citizen.

We can only assume that it is just a matter of time until American citizens are declared to be supporting al Qaeda and killed on American soil without so much as a single court hearing.

More at EndtheLie.com - http://EndtheLie.com/2011/12/02/the-entire-united-states-is-now-a-war-zone-s-1867-passes-the-senate-with-massive-support/#ixzz1fP4ZSRVc

 

[GARD]

11 Responses to "The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support"

  1. Steve December 2, 2011 5:35 pm Reply

    Meanwhile, I saw a USA Today article today that said Black Friday, the Friday after Thanksgiving Day, set a new record for gun sales by American citizens.

    Let’s see now. How many American citizens own guns? We’re a population of 300 or so million, right? Let’s say half of that number own guns. 150 million Americans, armed and very much in love with The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, as WRITTEN BY OUR FOUNDING DADDIES.

    I think it is pretty obvious these greasy slabs of totalitarian human scum are itching for a confrontation with their own citizens.

    And, they are gambling that the men and women in the military are going to be 100 percent on…their side? Are they handing out free LSD and ecstasy pills up on Capital Hill these days? Sure looks as though they are, doesn’t it?

    According to reports, the Pentagon, the FBI, the US Military, and just about anybody with a brain bigger than Juan McCain’s puny left testicle were emphatically opposed to this idea. Even Panetta, DOD himself – was opposed to it.

    You know, I was thinking. The consequences for not going after the real perpetrators of 9-11 and the treasonous rats who have spent the last 10 years helping to cover it up – are going to have some very profound, very serious, and possibly very unpleasant results in the not too distant future.

    1. george December 2, 2011 6:07 pm Reply

      very well said !

  2. D.L. December 2, 2011 6:01 pm Reply

    That’s what I think as well (see post at website above), that the power elites WANT to start a new civil war, thinking the army, etc. will back them up. Thinking most Americans will meekly go into FEMA camps. As of a couple of years ago, 90 million Americans owned guns. Hopefully it is 150 million by now. And if the power elites think they can win this new civil war they are sadly mistaken…but they are too inbred idiot to see that, plus this country is now run by criminals and psychopaths so even if they thought they’d lose they cannot understand the consequences. Since they don’t have consciences and think they are above consequences, they cannot see that what they are doing will destroy them

    1. JRW2 December 15, 2011 4:44 pm Reply

      I saw an article about the gun count in America about 2 or 3 years ago…..
      ” Nearly 200 MILLION guns are in private hands.They have an impact on the quality of life in America….
      In 1994 44 Million Civilians Owned 192 Million Firearms….”
      Who is The world’s largest army? Take the state of Wisconsin Alone,it’s 600,000 hunters would comprise the 8th largest army in the world…
      But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan’s 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the Largest army in the World.!
      This info may be a tad old,but you see the point. 99 98 % is a lot of folks

  3. Brent December 2, 2011 7:40 pm Reply

    I would appreciate names/address/itinerary of key members of the oligarchy whose demise would benefit our restoration. Where lives Blankfein, Diamond, Silverstein, J. Rothschilds, Slim and his family etc? If every vet with combat experience and able to follow our Constitution would religiously frag any bastards living within a 100 mile radius, we could start the “healing” within a few months.

    Noone paints on a dirty wall. So too, no republic can be restored with dirty politicians and other “leaders” holding positions of power.

    ENEMY=KILL!

  4. Billie December 2, 2011 7:49 pm Reply

    Only 7 decent human beings left out of 100? So, I guess we can take this as an indication that 93% of the US government is now completely corrupted? I wouldn’t be surprised if the 7 senators that voted against this bill will probably be labeled “al-Qaida” supporters in the not to distant future.

    There is no possible way the government can detain close to 300 million pissed off Americans. The best they can hope for is that the few thousands they choose to use as “examples” scare the rest of the population into submission. But, it would be very easy for those 300 million pissed off Americans to detain the 1% that comprise the government and the “ruling class”. Hell, they even spared us the trouble of building places to put them… You know, with those nice, shiny FEMA camps they have just waiting for occupants.

    How gracious of them.

  5. Terrorism | The Aussie Digger : Home of all Australian Veterans ex Service and Serving members December 2, 2011 9:00 pm Reply

    [...] The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support [...]

  6. Kathy December 2, 2011 9:02 pm Reply

    I dunno but something strikes me as very very odd. I watched Cspan live for 3 days in total outrage. L. Graham kept repeating, “It doesnt matter WHO you are….” Hmmm. Does that mean Obummer, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfiels, B. Bernacke, A. Greenspan, E. Holder, etc., etc.?
    I checked voting records for Patriot Act. Why would some vote for Patriot Act decide not to vote for this? Are they shakin in their shoes they may be seen as “enemy combatants” now? I know most of US military are aware they went to war based on a LIE and are very angry. Surely McCain (bast@r*), Graham, Levin CANT be this stupid!
    Maybe its true? “nothing is ever as it appears to be”?
    Not going to get my hopes up on that however. Just a thought I have.

    1. Kathy December 2, 2011 9:05 pm Reply

      I failed to state they voted for the UDALL amendment EXCLUDING US citizens and it was voted down. They sure jumped on the Patriot Act however.

  7. Davol December 2, 2011 9:10 pm Reply

    Here is a link to a petition to impeach the Senetors who voted for this war zone at home BS.

    http://www.care2.com/news/member/101960828/3033994

  8. Dr. Goldstein December 3, 2011 5:27 am Reply

    To Steve: Unfortunately, people having lots of guns is no guarantee that good will prevail over evil.

    Ignorant sheeple, who believe America is the greatest…, and who still believe they live in ‘a free country’ are as dangerous as the neocons.

    Solzhenitsyn said it best: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”



Leave a Reply