Right wing Republican warmongers and clueless Democrats put the language in the bill, saying that is what the law already is anyway.
So I wonder if the ACLU will file a lawsuit to have it held unconstitutional because it violates the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the ... persons ... to be seized."
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ... nor be deprived of ... liberty ... without due process of law ..."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
(Constitution, 6th Amendment); and the 8th Amendment:
"... nor [shall] cruel and unusual punishments [be] inflicted."
(Constitution, 8th Amendment). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has not taken the position the Senators wrongly said they had taken:
At this difficult time in our Nation’s history, we are called upon to consider the legality of the Government’s detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an “enemy combatant” and to address the process that is constitutionally owed to one who seeks to challenge his classification as such. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that petitioner’s detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. We now vacate and remand. We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
Whatever happened to the "strict constructionists" that the neoCon fascists in the Senate always talked about, and what happened to the "democratic" Senators who were shamefully undemocratic by voting for fascism?
These lyrics are the song in the two videos below:
Oh, a storm is threat'ning
My very life today
If I don't get some shelter
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Ooh, see the fire is sweepin'
Our very street today
Burns like a red coal carpet
Mad bull lost its way
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Rape, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Rape, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Rape, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
The floods is threat'ning
My very life today
Gimme, gimme shelter
Or I'm gonna fade away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away
It's just a kiss away
It's just a kiss away
It's just a kiss away
It's just a kiss away
Kiss away, kiss away
Why is Obama's job approval rating polling lower than any president in modern history at this time?
Did he leave his base behind, taking them for granted, and did the independents change their mind about him?
The Gallup Poll seems to indicate yes to those questions.
Once upon a campaign promise, candidate Barak Obama indicated that he was going to bring green change to the nation, starting in Washington, D.C., but it seems now that he was talking about getting green bucks for his campaign from the 1% this time, not from the 99% who elected him.
A change toward the green environmental direction has not happened, because from the day Obama was baptized into the Oilah Akbar religion during the Deepwater Horizon revival, he has become more and more an enemy of the Earth, following the W direction, following the oil baron Bush II:
Barack Obama has been just as zealous as George Bush in stripping away environmental, health and safety protection at the behest of industry, it turns out.
Some environmental organisations were beginning to suspect this, after Obama over-ruled his scientific advisors and blocked stronger ozone standards. Now, a new report [pdf] from the Centre for Progressive Reform has dug up some key data revealing that the White House in the age of Obama has been just as receptive to the pleadings of industry lobbyists as it was in the Bush era. And it goes far beyond ozone.
Under Obama, a little known corner of the White House - known as the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or Oira - has changed more than 80% of the rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
None of these were changes for the good, the report says.
"Every single study of its performance, including this one, shows that Oira serves as a one-way ratchet, eroding the protections that agency specialists have decided are necessary under detailed statutory mandates, following years — even decades — of work."
(Guardian). He said he would put an emphasis on science, but he ignored the weather catastrophes being caused by decades of ignoring science, and truth be known, doing worse than those before him in some cases.
His only hope for re-election is the Republicans who want to send a hyper-whacked out candidate to run against Obama, instead of a moderately whacked out candidate.
Obama must root for the right wing of the Republicans right now, because if a candidate like Huntsman won the Republican primaries Obama would be defeated.
At this time, it does not look like the Republicans will let him down.
Those on the right, who feign "pragmatic constitutional understanding" when confronted with the Fourth Amendment, tend to say: "I have nothing to hide, so why should I care if 'they' search me or mine without a warrant ... I mean c'mon ... only criminals fear to be searched, besides it makes us safe and secure to give up the Fourth Amendment."
But those who officially preach that doctrine to the sleepy minions (e.g. T-Baggers) become hostile and vain when they are searched without a "warrant" by the CIA (Cosmic Intelligent Agents) of the people, and then have to "feast on leeks" when the rank lies and propaganda are exposed.
All of a sudden, they have no use for WiggyLeeks, the food of the common folk.
They become national security wonks all of a sudden when the tides turn upon them, failing to realize that a rogue government is not something that is safe and secure in the first place.
Why doesn't it occur to them that if those sworn not to do what they don't want out in the open didn't do those bad things they would have nothing to worry about?
Those who indoctrinated those lizard brain controlled minions tend to wilt like a leek in the desert without water when they have to endure violations of the principles of that "quaint writ" (Gonzales) because of the emergence of the truth about them.
Well, it is so close to thanksgiving time that we need to talk about that constitutional food of the people, the leeks of the people, from now until Pentagonia, Capitol of Bullshitistan is a democracy again.
After that we will celebrate the new era with some champagne and rejoicing while we sing "long live the leeks and long live the people".
As it turns out, a couple of media newspapers are leek eaters:
US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis
• More than 250,000 dispatches reveal US foreign strategies • Diplomats ordered to spy on allies as well as enemies • Saudi king urged Washington to bomb Iran
"... cables date from 2007 or later — show American officials struggling with events whose outcomes are far from sure. To read through them is to become a global voyeur, immersed in the jawboning, inducements and penalties the United States wields in trying to have its way with a recalcitrant world."
We just found out how accurate that series was when something we did not know recently surfaced:
The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.
“TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.”
(Bloomberg, emphasis added). The Fed is the head of Banker Jekyll, but the rest of the banksters are like Agent Smith in the movie The Matrix:
The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
(NPR, emphasis added, cf. The Week, WS Bailout, Seattle Times). It almost seems like the United States has been invaded for its booty, leaving the people with an IOU in the treasury vaults where their money used to be.
This series deals with the ideology and circumstances which engendered the original Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) at the end of The Civil War.
We will address that law as the "PCA" in this post, as we discuss the incessant attacks on the PCA which followed those devastating events that happened in Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania on 9/11/01 in the USA.
A military website offers this interpretation of the law in question, the PCA:
The Posse Comitatus Act
Section 1385 of Title 18, United States Code (USC), states:
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
The PCA does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard in peacetime or to the National Guard in Title 32 or State Active Duty status. The substantive prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) were extended to all the services with the enactment of Title 10 USC, Section 375. As required by Title 10 USC, Section 375 the secretary of defense issued Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, which precludes members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps from direct participation in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military’s role in domestic affairs.
The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include: Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement
The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.
Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
Military support to civilian law enforcement is carried out in strict compliance with the Constitution and U.S. laws and under the direction of the president and secretary of defense.
(USNORTHCOM, emphasis added [UPDATE: the government "lost" this page (wink, wink), so use The Wayback Machine copy] ). That military website clearly indicates that the PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities, such as interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities in domestic affairs.
That military web page seems to be little more than propaganda, if one reads a Dept. of Homeland Securitycontractor website, where Bybee & Yoo lawyer types openly call that military website verbiage a myth:
The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for homeland defense. In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for homeland defense planners. Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.
(The Myth of Posse Comitatus, DHS contractor website, bold added [UPDATE: the government "lost" this page (wink, wink), so use The Wayback Machine copy]). You just have to notice the doublespeak used by Major Craig T. Trebilcock when writing the piece, using known propaganda techniques of the Bybee & Yoo type.
Trebilcock's insertion and use of "homeland defense" in place of "civilian law enforcement", as the operative clause in the text, tortures the original meaning and purpose of the law.
Clearly it is ridiculous and absurd for Trebilcock to define "civilian law enforcement" as a "homeland defense" of the type done by national military operations.
DHS contract lawyer Trebilcock's text, if it was honest and above board, would read:
The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for [civilian law enforcement]. In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for [civilian law enforcement] planners. Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in [civilian law enforcement].
(ibid). This reveals how radical of a change DHS contract lawyer Trebilcock indicates has taken place in the law called the PCA.
Trebilcock says PCA is now nothing more than a "procedural formality", not really any "impediment to the use of U.S. military forces" in civilian law enforcement, even though the military website has language to the contrary.
Who is telling the truth, USNORTHCOM's military website, or Trebilcock on the Department of Homeland Security contractor website?
The answer is: neither one is telling the whole truth.
The military has said in public to the press that a plan is in place for the military to perform a massive civilian law enforcement exercise never before seen in America:
A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.
The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.
(The Homeland: Big Brother Plutocracy, quoting The Phoenix Business Journal). A nation-wide military plan takes a long time to develop, so why would they take a long time to develop a plan their website says is illegal?
The military knew of Trebilcock's perspective, they knew what was on their own military website, and they knew that Trebilcock calls PCA "myth", so they must have anticipated or somehow brought about change Trebilcock can believe in.
How they modify national reality is: being able to change the law when they want to.
Let's add to our discussion federal legislation that is coming up for a vote next week, which will impact the spirit of the PCA, and will put it into the same category Trebilcock did, rendering the PCA a procedural formality, not an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in civilian law enforcement.
That federal legislation went into committee as Senate Bill "S. 1253", which contained the following text:
(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons - The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(S. 1253, Subtitle D, Sec. 1031). That would echo and mirror the original intent of the PCA, but that text was changed in committee to now read:
(d) CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(S. 1867, Subtitle D, Sec. 1031). The bill ends up, among other things, being about using the military for domestic civilian law enforcement in the manner DHS contract lawyer Trebilcock had indicated.
In other words, the military will be used as a federal police force in domestic matters as the The Phoenix Business Journal, quoting military sources, indicated.
Federal military soldiers eventually being used to put down any "Occupy" movements, anywhere they are too successful, is the likely scenario that is unfolding:
... Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated ...
(Guardian, Naomi Wolf; see also this and this). This is exactly what Dredd Blog anticipated as an ongoing, increasingly military morph of civilian structures, and the military morph of the public fabric in the USA going forward ("lean forward"):
“Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson
The Senate passed the bill mentioned above (S. 1867), and the White House says it will veto it.
Meanwhile, the military unveils a plan, "The U.S. Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028", for domestic military policing in case of problems ostensibly due to the bad economy, a plan which the military has worked on for a very long time:
A key and understudied aspect of full spectrum operations is how to conduct these operations within American borders ...
[Example Scenario]
...
The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated. After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief. The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade. By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises.
Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high. A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants. After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.
In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.
Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering.
(Full Spectrum Operations). This allows them to use as much military force as possible (e.g. "The Powell Doctrine").
How do we know that they were not responsible for those "extremist militia" in a type of false flag op?
We have been here before, unfortunately. The following song is about four young Americans shot down in cold blood by ruthless people who follow any orders:
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
The United States Senate, in a 93-7 vote, has passed a bill that violates the United States Constitution according to the ACLU and other legal scholars.
