03-12-2011, 05:41 AM
S. 1867 And Now… For the Rest.. of the Story
Posted on December 2, 2011 by willylomanby Scott Creighton
But as several people have shown, myself included, though the language of the bill is unduly vague and getting vaguer by the minute, it hardly expands the claimed power of the unitary executive that much farther than already assumed by our Peace Prize "winning", U.S. citizen murdering president of "CHANGE IS…".
It certainly doesn't provide for shooting little miss drum circle in the face with a riot gun. If Mr. Natural Ranger would like to debate me on that subject, my calender is pretty open.
So, just fucking relax. Take a breath, and let's look at what the bill actually does and start to ask the very serious questions that must arise from such legislation such as "Why do these supposed "dissident" and "human rights" groups misrepresent this bill in such a way and whom do they really serve?"
That's a good question. But let's start with a review of the other things the bill actually does before we get to that. Let's look at "the rest of the story".
Military Jurisdiction as opposed to the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex
First of all, the bill has one very specific end result and that is, it strips the FBI and the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex of the ability to "investigate" terrorist plots on U.S. soil.
Of that, there is no question. The bill MANDATES that ongoing investigations are allowed to continue, but future investigations, arrests, detentions, interrogations, and trials be handled through military channels.
How bad would that be?
Even Judge Napolitano of Fox News recently admitted and did a segment of his show explaining that all 17 of the FBI's "thwarted terrorist plots" since 9/11 were FABRICATED by the FBI. Every single one of them. They were ALL handled in civilian court nearly all of them were given a show trial, a kangaroo court, and were convicted to life sentences behind bars.
What is the difference between a life sentence without the possibility of parole handed down in a kangaroo court and "indefinite detention"? Indefinite detention can end. That's the difference.
Many writers have been exposing the fraudulent nature of these FBI success stories for what they are; entrapment, fraud, and even terrorist plots leveled against the people of this country BY people of this country… the FBI.
Look at what Keith Olbermann demanded of Bloomberg and Kelly after their bullshit "terrorist" story fell apart just last month in New York. That horrendous frame-up was created by the NYPD Intelligence Division. They made it up out of thin air.
This bill would put an end to those kind of operations. Is that a bad thing? Obama thinks it is.
The New York Times has an article in which an Obama apologist wants him to veto the bill if it remains as written precisely because it does what I say it does.
There is a huge cottage industry that has developed since 9/11. They are the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex and they are making billions of dollars fighting the so-called "Global War on Terror" right here in our back yards. They are already doing it. There are billions of federal and state dollars to be had and all one has to do is include the terms "national security" and "al Qaeda" in your proposal, and you are just about assured of getting huge financial endowments to start up your business. This bill threatens to end much of that (not all as many of these businesses are connected to the military under DoD contracts and that will probably continue if not grow)
So who does that hurt? The private sector counter intelligence industry? Of course. Not just the FBI and the over financed "intelligence" divisions of your local police department, but it hurts the average start-up fraud guy looking to cash in on some random aspect of the Global War on Terror.
Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but it is something that should be talked about in discussion forums openly because it is an aspect of all of this that will have huge implications on other parts of what I am about to discuss.
Extraordinary Renditions
Another aspect of this bill that is getting NO attention from the dissident and human rights sites is the fact that it practically does away with the practice of secretly renditioning terror suspects to foreign countries for "interrogation" (read as "torture")
Well, let's be more specific, it does away with using tax-payer dollars for the renditioning of terror suspects to other countries "or entities" (whatever that means. Is al Qaeda in Libya an "entity"?)
This simply means that the CIA and other clandestine death squads operating in the field are going to have to use some of their illegal heroin cash for such operations. That is pissing them off. They got other plans for that cash like arming the so-called "drug cartels" in Mexico (Iran contra ring any bells?)
But again, is this a bad thing? Should US tax-payer cash be used to fly Canadian citizens to foreign countries so they can be routinely tortured into confessing to things they did not do. Is that what we need to be paying for these days? Is that what you want your tax-dollars going toward? I don't.
United States as a Legitimate Part of the Battle Field in the Global War on Terror (read as "Global Free Market Wars")
This is probably going to be the most controversial aspect of this article without a doubt.
There is no easy way to go about this part of the debate. What seems to help in some circumstances will surely open the door for unscrupulous actors to use modified wartime powers to harm our civil liberties in ways that make even the most hyperactive sooth-Sayers blush with their naivete. it's dangerous ground to be sure, but let's open this up for debate and try to understand, beyond the breathless hyperbole, what are the real and imagined traps which lay before us, and who really stands the risk of falling into them.
I think the answer might be surprising if not just a little unexpected.
The idea is that this new legislation declares the entire world as the battlefield in the fictitious Global War on Terror. That's deeply concerning to me and many others out there. Venezuala has nothing to do with the GWAT and neither does Guam for that matter, yet this bill includes future acts that may or may not involve these countries. This is an outright expansion of what has been called the "endless war" the "100 years war" right at the beginning of it.
That's troubling. Very troubling. And it needs to be stricken from the bill. It will provide Obama and other future presidents the ability to launch drone strikes against anybody at any time in the future and he would only have to claim it's his struggle against the evil forces of terror in his GWOT. National security will permit him to keep his evidence a state secret. That is horrible legislation and must be stricken from the bill.
But is the declaration that that United States is part of the battle ground in the same vein? Is there an argument to be made that the United States is in fact part of the battle field if the so-called Global War on Terror is real?
Imagine Iran were to launch drone strikes against Miami Beach. Would Iran then be considered part of the battle field in the GWOT? Of course. All of Iran would then be a target in our Shock and Awe response.
So how is it different when we wage a drone war on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq from the comfortable confines of Colorado and New York? Does the act of having legitimate combatants on the ground on U.S. soil killing supposed combatants in this war necessarily define their locations to be part of the battle field?
These drone control cubicles are basically on wheels. They can be put anywhere really. They can be shipped to your neighborhood, they can sit in your driveway. If the military were to do that, would that mean that your driveway is part of the battle field? Is it already? It would be if we had the same definitions applied to us that we have applied already to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
You can't deny that.
Consider this: did the draft make endless wars more likely to happen or did it actually help to bring an end to that part of our foreign policy for awhile til the draft was no more?
The draft, while it was designed to help draw out the war, actually made everyone cannon fodder and thus it helped do the exact opposite. That's why we don't have one now. Let the under-funded public school system fail the poor and working classes so they will no better option than to serve in the military and let the privileged classes' children remain free from the bombs and the bullets. That is the policy now.
So what happens when the U.S. is declared part of the battle field? Does that bring the fraudulent GWOT home in such a way that it might help bring a faster resolution to all of this; ie: will calling Detroit part of the battle field help convince the people of Detroit to make their representatives call an end to it all?
It"s a good question and one to which I don't know the answer. But who could have foreseen the draft which was enacted to maintain the failed policy of Vietnam would actually bring about it's conclusion prior to Nixon and Kissenger's planned achievements in that area?
Lastly on this aspect of this chat, I want to point something out that will be a bit controversial (as if what I have already written isn't controversial enough)
What happens if the United States is declared part of the battle field in the GWOT and someone from within this government or governments past decides they want to stage another Operation Northwoods type event?
Think about that for a minute.
If every part of the U.S. is considered the battle field, then planning a terrorist act, even planning a fake terrorist act like the FBI and the NYPD Intelligence Division have done, would be an act of war not just a crime. It could actually be considered high treason couldn't it because on the surface, even a fake attack designed to be stopped, at some level must be considered a real threat to the target. And if the entire country is the battle field that means each and everything in it is part of the military GWOT ergo planning even a fake attack on a Jewish Synagogue is actually an attack in support of a foreign entity we are at war with. Therefore it's treason and an act of war.
On the flip side, military intelligence (let's face it, the Pentagon is run by former CIA chief Leon Panetta. That's bad) could fabricate terrorist plots just like the FBI did. Just like Bloomberg did. And in fact there are many many DoD contractors who would jump at the chance to help the military root out the evil "terrorist lefties" here in America. So that works both ways.
Wrap Up
So there you have it. A small glimpse at "the rest of the story"
In light of all of this, does it make more sense now that the Obama administration, the FBI and Leon Panetta are all on record wanting nothing to do with the language of this bill as it is written? Does this make it clearer to people why certain controlled opposition sites would purposefully inflate the dangers of the bill without going into detail about these other aspects of it?
All I can conclude after nearly a week of reading the bill and the various amendments, reading all the comments made by congressmen and public figures alike, reading and discussing it in detail with you readers here… all I can come away with is that it is just as convoluted as I claimed in my first article on the subject. Nothing about this bill is clearly defined and neither are the partisan and bi-partisan responses to it. Nothing is as it seems in this part of the bill and nothing is easy to forecast in terms of what it will or will not do.
As it stands the bill got through the senate with a bit of a fix, but not much of one.
It now goes to the House and then committee and probably back to the senate and we are sure to debate this again in the near future.
Understand this: every country that is neoliberalised is done so at the point of a gun. With no exceptions. Eventually the people come to understand what is happening to them (as we are starting to see more and more of in this country and other Western democracies around Europe) it is only the forcible rule of a totalitarian system that can keep the globalist policies in place.
WE.. WILL.. BE.. NO.. DIFFERENT
I have said this from the first day I started this blog 4 and a half years ago. It is the sole reason that I do this blog, that I expose the propaganda and the globalist creep that is infecting the world as we speak.
WE.. WILL.. BE.. NO.. DIFFERENT
This bill is a step. It is a step in one direction or another. The serious debate must come to focus on the entirety of the bill and not just one, over-inflated aspect of it, if the debate itself is to serve any other purpose that simply ramming more totalitarianism down our throats. The debate itself is important, let there be no mistake.
Thanks for your consideration of "the rest of the story".
Note: Let it be known that I do not support these sections of S. 1867 as written.I just think we need to consider the rest of the story before doing the bidding of Obama and the FBI.
The internets are abuzz with end-times prognostication on the meaning and menace of S. 1867 the National Defense Authorization Act 2012. Sooth-Sayers and belligerent bloggers from all sides are damning us to eternal detainment because section 1031 doesn't go far enough to claim that U.S. citizens can't be treated like those evil Canadian terrorists. Mike Adams claims the evil guberment has the right to murder OWS protesters in cold blood while that guy from the Oath Keepers (and YALE… wink wink wink) claims it's time we started shooting people because the constitution is over (though he "HOPEs" it won't come to that… wink wink wink)But as several people have shown, myself included, though the language of the bill is unduly vague and getting vaguer by the minute, it hardly expands the claimed power of the unitary executive that much farther than already assumed by our Peace Prize "winning", U.S. citizen murdering president of "CHANGE IS…".
It certainly doesn't provide for shooting little miss drum circle in the face with a riot gun. If Mr. Natural Ranger would like to debate me on that subject, my calender is pretty open.
So, just fucking relax. Take a breath, and let's look at what the bill actually does and start to ask the very serious questions that must arise from such legislation such as "Why do these supposed "dissident" and "human rights" groups misrepresent this bill in such a way and whom do they really serve?"
That's a good question. But let's start with a review of the other things the bill actually does before we get to that. Let's look at "the rest of the story".
Military Jurisdiction as opposed to the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex
First of all, the bill has one very specific end result and that is, it strips the FBI and the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex of the ability to "investigate" terrorist plots on U.S. soil.
Of that, there is no question. The bill MANDATES that ongoing investigations are allowed to continue, but future investigations, arrests, detentions, interrogations, and trials be handled through military channels.
How bad would that be?
Even Judge Napolitano of Fox News recently admitted and did a segment of his show explaining that all 17 of the FBI's "thwarted terrorist plots" since 9/11 were FABRICATED by the FBI. Every single one of them. They were ALL handled in civilian court nearly all of them were given a show trial, a kangaroo court, and were convicted to life sentences behind bars.
What is the difference between a life sentence without the possibility of parole handed down in a kangaroo court and "indefinite detention"? Indefinite detention can end. That's the difference.
Many writers have been exposing the fraudulent nature of these FBI success stories for what they are; entrapment, fraud, and even terrorist plots leveled against the people of this country BY people of this country… the FBI.
Look at what Keith Olbermann demanded of Bloomberg and Kelly after their bullshit "terrorist" story fell apart just last month in New York. That horrendous frame-up was created by the NYPD Intelligence Division. They made it up out of thin air.
This bill would put an end to those kind of operations. Is that a bad thing? Obama thinks it is.
The New York Times has an article in which an Obama apologist wants him to veto the bill if it remains as written precisely because it does what I say it does.
"The Senate is debating the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a series of provisions that mandate military interrogation and detention for any suspected member of Al Qaeda, and authorize indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without trial. (The law is written so broadly that parts of it could also cover U.S. citizens.)…
…. These new policies would all but remove the F.B.I., federal prosecutors, and federal courts from the business of interrogating, charging and trying suspected terrorists. Never mind that they have a track record of doing just that, legally and in the open. Instead, it would put those functions in the hands of the military, which is not very good at it, and doesn't want to do it." New York Times
In his dissenting address letter to congress, Obama makes it very clear why he does not support the language of this part of the bill and thus he gives his real reason for his threatened veto of it. Aside from paying a bit of lip service to our constitutional rights as citizens (which is exposed as being purely bullshit when one understands that both Levin and Udall admit in a talk on the senate floor from Nov. 17th that it was the Obama administration who forced them to remove language in the original bill that made sure U.S. citizens were not to be covered under these new provisions… a fact Mr. Greenwald recently forgot to mention in his latest article on the subject) the Obama administration makes it very clear that he intends to maintain the status quo when it comes to preserving the Counter Intelligence Complex in all of it's various forms as it has developed since the False Flag attack of 9/11:…. These new policies would all but remove the F.B.I., federal prosecutors, and federal courts from the business of interrogating, charging and trying suspected terrorists. Never mind that they have a track record of doing just that, legally and in the open. Instead, it would put those functions in the hands of the military, which is not very good at it, and doesn't want to do it." New York Times
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals…
… We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. " Barack Obama
The Director of the FBI is strongly opposed to the passage of the bill as it's written and so is the former head of the CIA, Leon Panetta. The current CIA chief has yet to weigh in on the matter oddly enough. In fact many career "intelligence" professionals are strongly opposed to this bill being passed as is. Why is that? Why are they opposed to it and why don't the likes of Mr. Anders at the ACLU and Alex Jones pointing that out? Why indeed.… We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. " Barack Obama
There is a huge cottage industry that has developed since 9/11. They are the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex and they are making billions of dollars fighting the so-called "Global War on Terror" right here in our back yards. They are already doing it. There are billions of federal and state dollars to be had and all one has to do is include the terms "national security" and "al Qaeda" in your proposal, and you are just about assured of getting huge financial endowments to start up your business. This bill threatens to end much of that (not all as many of these businesses are connected to the military under DoD contracts and that will probably continue if not grow)
So who does that hurt? The private sector counter intelligence industry? Of course. Not just the FBI and the over financed "intelligence" divisions of your local police department, but it hurts the average start-up fraud guy looking to cash in on some random aspect of the Global War on Terror.
Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but it is something that should be talked about in discussion forums openly because it is an aspect of all of this that will have huge implications on other parts of what I am about to discuss.
Extraordinary Renditions
Another aspect of this bill that is getting NO attention from the dissident and human rights sites is the fact that it practically does away with the practice of secretly renditioning terror suspects to foreign countries for "interrogation" (read as "torture")
Well, let's be more specific, it does away with using tax-payer dollars for the renditioning of terror suspects to other countries "or entities" (whatever that means. Is al Qaeda in Libya an "entity"?)
This simply means that the CIA and other clandestine death squads operating in the field are going to have to use some of their illegal heroin cash for such operations. That is pissing them off. They got other plans for that cash like arming the so-called "drug cartels" in Mexico (Iran contra ring any bells?)
But again, is this a bad thing? Should US tax-payer cash be used to fly Canadian citizens to foreign countries so they can be routinely tortured into confessing to things they did not do. Is that what we need to be paying for these days? Is that what you want your tax-dollars going toward? I don't.
United States as a Legitimate Part of the Battle Field in the Global War on Terror (read as "Global Free Market Wars")
This is probably going to be the most controversial aspect of this article without a doubt.
There is no easy way to go about this part of the debate. What seems to help in some circumstances will surely open the door for unscrupulous actors to use modified wartime powers to harm our civil liberties in ways that make even the most hyperactive sooth-Sayers blush with their naivete. it's dangerous ground to be sure, but let's open this up for debate and try to understand, beyond the breathless hyperbole, what are the real and imagined traps which lay before us, and who really stands the risk of falling into them.
I think the answer might be surprising if not just a little unexpected.
The idea is that this new legislation declares the entire world as the battlefield in the fictitious Global War on Terror. That's deeply concerning to me and many others out there. Venezuala has nothing to do with the GWAT and neither does Guam for that matter, yet this bill includes future acts that may or may not involve these countries. This is an outright expansion of what has been called the "endless war" the "100 years war" right at the beginning of it.
That's troubling. Very troubling. And it needs to be stricken from the bill. It will provide Obama and other future presidents the ability to launch drone strikes against anybody at any time in the future and he would only have to claim it's his struggle against the evil forces of terror in his GWOT. National security will permit him to keep his evidence a state secret. That is horrible legislation and must be stricken from the bill.
But is the declaration that that United States is part of the battle ground in the same vein? Is there an argument to be made that the United States is in fact part of the battle field if the so-called Global War on Terror is real?
Imagine Iran were to launch drone strikes against Miami Beach. Would Iran then be considered part of the battle field in the GWOT? Of course. All of Iran would then be a target in our Shock and Awe response.
So how is it different when we wage a drone war on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq from the comfortable confines of Colorado and New York? Does the act of having legitimate combatants on the ground on U.S. soil killing supposed combatants in this war necessarily define their locations to be part of the battle field?
These drone control cubicles are basically on wheels. They can be put anywhere really. They can be shipped to your neighborhood, they can sit in your driveway. If the military were to do that, would that mean that your driveway is part of the battle field? Is it already? It would be if we had the same definitions applied to us that we have applied already to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
You can't deny that.
Consider this: did the draft make endless wars more likely to happen or did it actually help to bring an end to that part of our foreign policy for awhile til the draft was no more?
The draft, while it was designed to help draw out the war, actually made everyone cannon fodder and thus it helped do the exact opposite. That's why we don't have one now. Let the under-funded public school system fail the poor and working classes so they will no better option than to serve in the military and let the privileged classes' children remain free from the bombs and the bullets. That is the policy now.
So what happens when the U.S. is declared part of the battle field? Does that bring the fraudulent GWOT home in such a way that it might help bring a faster resolution to all of this; ie: will calling Detroit part of the battle field help convince the people of Detroit to make their representatives call an end to it all?
It"s a good question and one to which I don't know the answer. But who could have foreseen the draft which was enacted to maintain the failed policy of Vietnam would actually bring about it's conclusion prior to Nixon and Kissenger's planned achievements in that area?
Lastly on this aspect of this chat, I want to point something out that will be a bit controversial (as if what I have already written isn't controversial enough)
What happens if the United States is declared part of the battle field in the GWOT and someone from within this government or governments past decides they want to stage another Operation Northwoods type event?
Think about that for a minute.
If every part of the U.S. is considered the battle field, then planning a terrorist act, even planning a fake terrorist act like the FBI and the NYPD Intelligence Division have done, would be an act of war not just a crime. It could actually be considered high treason couldn't it because on the surface, even a fake attack designed to be stopped, at some level must be considered a real threat to the target. And if the entire country is the battle field that means each and everything in it is part of the military GWOT ergo planning even a fake attack on a Jewish Synagogue is actually an attack in support of a foreign entity we are at war with. Therefore it's treason and an act of war.
On the flip side, military intelligence (let's face it, the Pentagon is run by former CIA chief Leon Panetta. That's bad) could fabricate terrorist plots just like the FBI did. Just like Bloomberg did. And in fact there are many many DoD contractors who would jump at the chance to help the military root out the evil "terrorist lefties" here in America. So that works both ways.
Wrap Up
So there you have it. A small glimpse at "the rest of the story"
In light of all of this, does it make more sense now that the Obama administration, the FBI and Leon Panetta are all on record wanting nothing to do with the language of this bill as it is written? Does this make it clearer to people why certain controlled opposition sites would purposefully inflate the dangers of the bill without going into detail about these other aspects of it?
All I can conclude after nearly a week of reading the bill and the various amendments, reading all the comments made by congressmen and public figures alike, reading and discussing it in detail with you readers here… all I can come away with is that it is just as convoluted as I claimed in my first article on the subject. Nothing about this bill is clearly defined and neither are the partisan and bi-partisan responses to it. Nothing is as it seems in this part of the bill and nothing is easy to forecast in terms of what it will or will not do.
As it stands the bill got through the senate with a bit of a fix, but not much of one.
It now goes to the House and then committee and probably back to the senate and we are sure to debate this again in the near future.
Understand this: every country that is neoliberalised is done so at the point of a gun. With no exceptions. Eventually the people come to understand what is happening to them (as we are starting to see more and more of in this country and other Western democracies around Europe) it is only the forcible rule of a totalitarian system that can keep the globalist policies in place.
WE.. WILL.. BE.. NO.. DIFFERENT
I have said this from the first day I started this blog 4 and a half years ago. It is the sole reason that I do this blog, that I expose the propaganda and the globalist creep that is infecting the world as we speak.
WE.. WILL.. BE.. NO.. DIFFERENT
This bill is a step. It is a step in one direction or another. The serious debate must come to focus on the entirety of the bill and not just one, over-inflated aspect of it, if the debate itself is to serve any other purpose that simply ramming more totalitarianism down our throats. The debate itself is important, let there be no mistake.
Thanks for your consideration of "the rest of the story".
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"