WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department's former top criminal prosecutor says the government's terror watch list likely has caused thousands of innocent Americans to be questioned, searched or otherwise hassled.
Former Assistant Attorney General Jim Robinson would know: he's one of them.
Robinson joined another mistaken-identity American and the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday to urge fixing the list that's supposed to identify suspected terrorists.
"It's a pain in the neck, and significantly interferes with my travel arrangements," said Robinson, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division during the Clinton administration. He believes his name matches that of someone who was put on the list in early 2005, and is routinely delayed while flying — despite having his own government top-secret security clearances renewed last year.
"I suppose if I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it," Robinson said. "But I doubt it."
He added:
"I expect my story is similar to hundreds of thousands of people who are on this list who find themselves inconvenienced."
The government calls its watch list one of the most effective tools in its fight against terrorism. It was created after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to consolidate 12 existing lists and make sure no terrorists slipped through the cracks — whether when entering the country or if otherwise stopped for questioning. Last year, congressional investigators found "general agreement that the watch list has helped to combat terrorism."
Other audits of the watch list over the last several years, however, have concluded that it has mistakenly flagged innocent people whose names are similar to those on it. More than 30,000 airline passengers had asked the Homeland Security Department to clear their names from the list as of October 2006. Additionally, as many as 20 suspected terrorists were left off the list as of last year due to a technology glitch.
Chad Kolton, a spokesman for the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center that maintains the list, said the government is working to fix the gaps.
"We strive to have the watch list contain all appropriately suspected terrorists who represent a threat to the U.S., but only appropriately suspected terrorists," Kolton said.
The ACLU predicted the watch list would include 1 million names as early as Monday. The civil liberties group reached that number by citing the 700,000 records on the watch list as of last September and adding 20,000 names each month, as forecast by the Justice Department's inspector general.
Kolton disputed that number, however, saying that only about 400,000 individuals are on the list — with the rest being records of aliases or other identifiers for those same people. Kolton said that 95 percent of the people on the list are not Americans or legal U.S. residents — and most aren't even in the country.
The Government Accountability Office, the investigations arm of Congress, similarly concluded last year that the total number of records on the watch list "does not represent the total number of individuals," saying it contains multiple records for the same person.
For some Americans whose names match those on the list, being delayed or detained for extra screening isn't just a hassle — it's frightening.
Chicago-area computer consultant Akif Rahman, who was born in Springfield, Ill., said he has been detained at least seven times after traveling abroad. During one such incident in May, he said, he was held for five hours, shackled to a chair and kicked by a Customs Service agent after being stopped at a U.S. checkpoint on the Canadian border.
"I was fearful for my own safety and that of my family," said Rahman, who is suing the government to have his identity cleared from the watch list. "I simply could not believe that I, a born U.S. citizen, was going though this experience simply re-entering my own country."
Watch as this popular documentary tries to convince the nation that we have lost Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 13 by congressional legislation or executive order. Likewise, this documentary tries to convince the audience that the Military Commissions Act stripped our right of habeas corpus from the Constitution. Nonsense. Congress has no power to change so much as a comma in the Constitution. We have lost nothing but our minds.
Washington, You're Fired!
Note: You do not have to sign any petitions or write any letters to your representatives. Every two years you have the right to remove 100 percent of the members of the House of Representatives and 33 percent of the Senators. The ballot is available to register your demand.
3 comments:
Anonymous said...
LOL MARK WAS THAT YOU?? at approximately 21:40 they put a brain on you and you started twinkling I think. Hahahaha.
Good for you, Mark. Good for you!
Fred Marshall said...
Technically, you are absolutely right. I suppose that is a good argument you can make when you're stopped at any one of the growing number of arbitrary checkpoints across the country, as they snatch you out of the car and taser you as they drag you to a patrol car and haul you downtown. By the time you get before a judge, the charges (bogus all) against you will be so overwhelming that you won't escape scot-free.
Obviously you have not had a run-in with the "law" lately. I have. So have thousands of others. Law enforcement and the courts play by the Patriot Act "rules," not by the Constitutional prohibitions. I heard one judge, in a Larry Becraft trial, clearly say he wouldn't allow the Constitution to be quoted in his courtroom. I was there and personally heard that.
Former Texas attorney Harmon Taylor resigned the bar after losing his case before the court of appeals on the Timothy McVeigh case, when they ruled that the Constitution "is not admissible evidence of law." The public was told the 30-day delay in McVeigh's execution was because they had found some misplaced FBI files they wanted McVeigh's lawyers to see, but that delay was caused by Harmon's jurisdictional challenge based on the Constitution's requirement that wrongful death is a matter over which the State has exclusive jurisdiction, when it occurs anywhere within the state other than federally-owned property. The Murrah "Federal" building was OWNED by Oklahoma City and only portions of it were LEASED to the feds.
If I have $100 but you have it locked in your safety deposit box and won't give me access to it, is it really mine?
Fred
said...
Public perception is worth its weight in gold. If the public is led to believe that "Ron Paul can't win," can he win? If the public is led to believe that there are "only three candidates," can Ron Paul win? If the public is led to believe that Congress voted away the Bill of Rights, do you expect the public to demand enforcement of the Bill of Rights?
But we are a nation of laws, not a nation of wishes or illusions painted by TV broadcasters and commentators. So, yes, Fred, in the hypothetical example you gave, the $100 is still yours, and if I won't surrender it then you have a right to take action to get it. My decision cannot change your entitlement.
If a judge or police officer misbehaves, he doesn't have any effect on the law. The law stands until legally changed. Americans should know this well, so that at every turn we will object loudly and boldly to illegal government behavior.
In response to the growing controversy over plainly misleading comments by Attorney General Michael Mukasey last week in San Francisco, and in response to the questions I submitted, the DOJ's Peter Carr, its Principal Deputy Director of Public Affairs, sent me the following email:
In a question-and-answer session after his Commonwealth Club speech last week, Attorney General Mukasey referenced a call between an al Qaeda safe house and a person in the United States. The Attorney General has referred to this before, in the letter he sent with Director of National Intelligence McConnell to Chairman Reyes on February 22, 2008. In that letter, contained in this link [.pdf], the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence explained that:
"We have provided Congress with examples in which difficulties with collections under [Executive Order 12333] resulted in the Intelligence Community missing crucial information. For instance, one of the September 11 hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist facility while he was living in the United States. Because that collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333, the Intelligence Community could not identify the domestic end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001, when it could have stopped that attack. The failure to collect such communications was one of the central criticisms of the Congressional Joint Inquiry that looked into intelligence failures associated with the attacks of September 11. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would address such flaws in our capabilities that existed before the enactment of the Protect America Act and that are now resurfacing."
This call is also referenced in the unclassified report of the congressional intelligence committees' Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.
For multiple reasons, this response heightens, rather than resolves, the severely misleading nature of Mukasey's claims. More importantly, Mukasey's comments illustrate the endless exploitation of the 9/11 attacks to demand ever-expanding power to know more and more about the activities of U.S. citizens inside the U.S., and the deceitful practice of blaming what were intelligence failures on civil liberties, safeguards and oversight, and basic Constitutional guarantees.
Several points to note about the DOJ's response:
(1)Some had speculated (not unreasonably) that perhaps Mukasey had not intended to claim that there really was an actual pre-9/11 call from an "Afghan safe house" into the U.S. that the Government failed to investigate, but rather, that he was speaking only hypothetically about the type of call that might have been missed due to FISA. The response from the DOJ makes conclusively clear that Mukasey really was (and is) claiming that there was an actual call of the type he describes.
(2) The DOJ's vague claim -- that "this call is also referenced in the unclassified report of the congressional intelligence committees' Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks" -- is baffling, given that three Democratic House Chairmen (including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers) said yesterday that they've never heard of any such thing ("I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks"), as did 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow ("Not sure of course what the AG had in mind").
It's extremely unlikely -- to put it mildly -- that if an episode of such obvious significance had really occurred, nobody would know what Mukasey was talking about.
(3) There is only one reference in the Joint Inquiry report (.pdf) that has any remote similarity to what Mukasey described (p. 36), but that was a call that originated in the U.S., not in an "Afghan safe house":
Critically, the Report emphasized that FISA provided all of the authority needed to have intercepted that communication, to learn of its domestic origins and to disseminate it to the FBI and other domestic intelligence agencies. To the extent the NSA failed to do so, this had nothing to do with FISA or any other legal restraints or civil liberties, but rather, with poor intelligence practices:
The pre-9/11 failures, as the Joint Inquiry itself concluded, were failures resulting from how the NSA used its legal authorities, not from insufficient legal authorities or excessive legal restraints. Even if this were the call that Mukasey was describing -- and that is very dubious -- none of that has anything to do with FISA. Such an incident would not even have justified loosening the pre-9/11 safeguards, let alone -- after seven years of endless erosion of such safeguards -- justify any further erosion now.
This morning I interviewed Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies and one of the nation's foremost surveillance experts. She pointed out that even prior to 9/11, the NSA commonly intercepted international communications into the U.S. and -- in numerous, broadly defined circumstances -- was authorized to disseminate what they learned to the FBI and other domestic agencies. If they failed to intercept calls involving Al Qaeda and/or failed to disseminate information to the FBI about looming terrorist attacks, it wasn't because FISA or any other laws prohibited them from doing so.
(4) Even the DOJ's own response makes clear how deceitful Mukasey's speech was. The DOJ references a passage in the Mukasey/McConnell letter where they blame restrictions imposed not by FISA, but supposedly by Executive Order 12333, which is an order issued in 1981 by Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order has nothing to do with FISA, and could have been amended or rescinded at any time by George Bush (and indeed, subsequent to 9/11, it was twiceamended by Bush).
If, as Mukasey himself contends, Reagan's 1981 Executive Order prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks (an absurd proposition for reasons set forth above), that is self-evidently no reason to eliminate FISA's warrant requirements or any other legal safeguards against eavesdropping abuses. Even assuming all of Mukasey's own premises to be true -- a wholly unwarranted concession -- it's still completely deceitful to cite this call and these impediments as a reason why FISA protections should be eroded further still (in the form of Rockefeller's Senate bill) or, worse, to suggest that FISA was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
* * * * *
Chairman Conyers should absolutely continue to demand answers from Mukasey as to whether or not this alleged call from an "Afghan safe house" that the Government failed to investigate ever actually happened. It is extremely dubious that Mukasey's claims in that regard are accurate.
But even if they were, the deceit here is manifest, and is extremely common ever since the 9/11 attack. The administration has no interest in improving its intelligence-gathering capabilities, its counter-terrorism strategies, or its ability to identify valuable information. Its only interest is to obtain greater and greater domestic spying powers with fewer and fewer oversights -- based on the premise that as long as they know Everything, we'll all be safe. Its appetite for this is insatiable.
As Martin points out, the principal defect in counter-terrorism prior to the 9/11 attacks was an inability to identify valuable information, not legal restraints on their ability to gather it. That summer, the intelligence community knew that bin Laden was determined to strike the U.S. and that at least two of his operatives had entered the U.S. But they failed to act with the urgency or focus that such information warranted. Whatever caused their failures to prevent the attacks, it had nothing to do with safeguards and legal prohibitions.
If anything, allowing the Government to collect greater and greater amounts of surveillance data, with fewer and fewer safeguards, results in far less effective counter-terrorism efforts. As both Martin and Rep. Rush Holt have continuously pointed out, allowing the intelligence community to suck up whatever they want about Americans in some sort of blunderbuss vacuum cleaner effect, without safeguards, is far less likely to lead to the detection of actual threats than is focused, narrow, and managed intelligence-gathering activities. More safeguards and restrictions lead to better surveillance.
And yet, the Bush administration has repeatedly succeeded in using the 9/11 attacks to obtain more and more unchecked domestic spying power. And even seven years later, the Attorney General is still parading around in public and tearfully talking about the attacks in order to claim that we need to eliminate the last remaining checks on their domestic spying powers, even though those checks do not even arguably have anything to do with the failures he tearfully exploits. But that's all this administration is and has ever been -- a relentless and profoundly dishonest exploiter of the 9/11 attacks for greater power and less accountability. In that regard, Mike Mukasey has already proven himself to be a perfect addition to the team.
UPDATE: The audio of Mukasey's appearance at the Commonwealth Club is here (ht/t Jim White). The relevant excerpt from the Q-and-A session begins at roughly the 50:00 minute mark.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Mukasey is tearfully hauling out the alleged Afghan call and failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks to demand enactment of the warrantless eavesdropping powers in the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate FISA bill, and that (even leaving aside whether the episode happened as he described it) is what makes his claims so deceitful. Those two things have nothing even arguably to do with one another -- since FISA did not even arguably prevent interception and domestic dissemination of calls of that sort -- yet here is yet another Bush official, yet again, exploiting those attacks to demand more unchecked government power.
-- Glenn Greenwald
November 19, 2007
"Civil Liberties in Wartime"
This is a must watch video
Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, gives a speech entitled "Civil Liberties in Wartime" at The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic"
Readers with limited time may wish to begin watching at part 2, where Mr. Napolitano addresses the topic.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted. See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify usif you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Here are a few related links and sites that Judge Napolitano recommends:
SPECIAL REPORT: Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters
Second major phase of the coordinated destruction of freedom in America targets those who refuse to go along with it
Take the time to read this in its entirety. The links are very good.
I took the time to watch the video of the Congressional hearings which
was very shocking.
Sure, I get labelled a "conspiracy THEORIST"; I USED TO BE Called a Moonbat on certain websites before that.
But somehow, seeing that video, whereby lots of Israelis drop by the US CONgress to attack those who are merely indulging in FREE SPEECH is highly shocking.
This blog is loaded with EVIDENCE that the DoD is WAY out of control. The US is a victim of its OWN addiction to power; its gotten "drunk" on its ability to produce weapons, regalia and the trappings of empire.
People are left traumatized and upset that their lives have spun so far out of control and are still scratching their heads wondering what has befallen them. That is in the WESTERN world.
Those of us who examine the DOTS on a daily basis (and I am slow to connect them as I can possibly be - and that's getting more and more difficult I'll tell ya) - are in a sort of state of panic as we watch what is happening.
The internet is loaded with cointel pro agents, deliberate $chills who come and post their windups to make you say stoopid things in retalliation and twist the simplist of moral convictions into something that looks like you are a moron rather than the thinking person that you are. This has been heightened over the past summer: I really detected a major shift during the Andrew Meyer "incident" - remember Andrew Meyer, tasared for asking a question of John Kerry?? Of course, you do.
A clamp down on the internet is the LAST thing people need. More and more people are FED UP with the newspapers, the radio, and the TELEVISION networks' constant drumming of infortainment and corrupted news stories -- and the internet is more alive than ever before.
These new internet controls (and they are coming! via your friendly ISP!) are very frightening. I feel threatened myself that one day I will wake up and this blog will have disappeared OR that my ISP will totally disallow me to post anything THEY deem unacceptable. Surely ISPs are no experts on free speech! Even some lawyers don't seem to grasp that simple coancept; why would a telecom??
So read this and check out these links BEFORE you aren't ABLE to read them as you will be PREVENTED from doing so, as they are in the territory of the "unacceptable" and are now TERRORIST enhancing!!
SPECIAL REPORT: Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters Second major phase of the coordinated destruction of freedom in America targets those who refuse to go along with it
A sustained media propaganda campaign in support of the move to swing the apparatus of tyranny away from phantom Muslim terrorists and towards the American people is in full operation and may pave the way for further attacks on US soil to be blamed on dissenting Americans who speak out against the war and the rise of the domestic police state.
Over the past decade we have witnessed an extreme acceleration of the physical implementation of a framework and infrastructure ready to receive those who will not go along with a coordinated destruction of traditional American values and freedom. With 9/11 came the first opportunity of the 21st century to radically alter the mentality of America and introduce a new order of society.
The corporate media is now preparing the psyche of the American public for a second major shift. This time the effort will be to direct the understanding of the manufactured and fraudulent "war on terror", away from "Islamofascists" and "Al Qaeda" and towards dissenting American citizens.
Over the past month or so we have highlighted this ongoing propaganda campaign in the following articles:
Establishment "news" hacks such as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are raising the same talking point ad infinitum, dubbing the global truth movement, along with the anti-war movement, as "anarchists" and violent individuals who are aiding terrorists.
In the event of another attack on US soil, an army of Neo-Cons secretly sharing the same fetish, would revel in exploiting a hollow opportunity to say "we told you so," even at the expense of thousands of dead dads, moms, sons, daughters and babies.
"But these are just the mindless frothings of talking heads looking for ratings" some might say. When you take them in context with the ongoing actions of the government, however, a clearer more deadly picture emerges.
The propaganda coincides with a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week, broadcast on C-Span, which featured a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.
Past legislation written up and in many cases implemented by the Bush administration has completely cleared the path for the targeting of American citizens as "enemy combatants" and systematically destroyed the Bill Of Rights. Here is a brief re-cap on some of that legislation:
Back in July this year this vaguely worded EO was signed and acts as an amendment to the National Emergencies Act. It states that any American citizen who "threatens the peace and stability of Iraq and undermines efforts to promote reconstruction and reform" there may have all their property and interests seized by the Treasury department without warning. Many within the anti-war movement have viewed this as a move to target protesters. it certainly is the case that anti-war protesters have been heavily surveilled by the FBI, the NSA and the Pentagon at meetings and rallies as many mainstream sources have reported this year.
HR 6166 - Military Commissions Act
Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror in passing the Military Commissions Act and officially ending Habeas Corpus in September 2006.
There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.
The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."
Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of the bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal. Section 950j of the bill also preemptively criminalizes any challenge to the legislation's legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court and allows the use of torture that is, "incidental to lawful sanctions."
John Warner Defense Authorization Act
The Bush Junta quietly "tooled up" to utilize the U.S. military in engaging American dissidents after the next big crisis, with a frightening and overlooked piece of legislation that was passed alongside the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which greased the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus.
Martial Law Presidential Decision Directive 51
New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.
The party line often heard from Neo-Cons in their attempts to defend the Patriot Act either circulate around the contention that the use of the Patriot Act has never been abused or that it isn't being used against American citizens. Here is an archive of articles that disproves both of these fallacies.
The Patriot Act was the boiler plate from which all subsequent attacks on the Constitution were formed.
USA Patriot Act II
The second Patriot Act was a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganized the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command.
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
The once covert but now exposed "anti-terror" domestic wiretapping program has proven that the Bush administration has targeted American citizens in the "war on terror":
"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials," reported the New York Times on December 16, 2005
The secret warrantless spying program was a complete violation of both the 4th Amendment and FISA.
Not content with now being lawfully allowed to force ISP's and cell phone companies to turn over data about customers without a warrant, the Bush administration pushed for even more authority to spy on American citizens, and was handed a 6 month window this August within which to impose any surveillance policy it likes, and for that program to remain legal in perpetuity.
These types of programs are not new of course, precursors such as COINTELPRO and many other incarnations of the same kind of surveillance programs have been targeting American citizens for decades.
Getting rid of Posse Comitatus - Setting the precedent
“In a police state the police are national, powerful, authoritarian. Inevitably, national governments yield to the temptation to use the military to do the heavy lifting….once the military is used, however minor initially, the march toward martial law … becomes irresistible.” - Representative Ron Paul of Texas - June 25 1997.
The Posse Comitatus Actis a recognition that the framers of the constitution had a deep distrust of centralized power, particularly centralized military power that might be used against the people. State militias were preferred over a national army. In times of major disaster or emergency, it has been state governors - not the president - who call out that state's contingent of the national guard.
We have witnessed over a long period of time how Posse Comitatus is systematically being erased. After 9/11 this was particularly accelerated. All the so called "experts" were calling for changes to long standing laws, in order to "protect" us. This led to scores of lower level government officials pleading for exactly what the criminal elements higher up wanted all along.
"Our way of life has forever changed," wrote Sen. John Warner, R-Va., in a letter last month to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Should this law now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?"
So let's get this right, "terrorists" attack us because they "hate our freedoms" and the answer is to get rid of our freedoms?
Here's another mainstream report from 2002 documenting a senators call to abolish Posse Comitatus and let troops arrest US civilians.
But before the war on terror it was clear that there was preparation afoot for such eventualities. Nothing is under review, this has always been the agenda. They were erasing Posse Comitatus 14 Years Ago. In 911: The Road to Tyranny Alex Jones presents footage of troops training to put Americans into Concentration Camps. This footage includes interrogations and a retired Marine admitting that in 1988 he was kicking down doors in Norfolk, Virginia. The Marines would be ordered to the local Police station where they would don Police uniforms. They would then go to the local gun shop or dealers home and "Take Them Down."
In Alex Jones' feature Police State 2000he covers Operation Urban Warrior where actors posed as American citizens who were Unconstitutionally seized from their homes by the military and police. These Americans: were rounded up and confined behind barbed-wire.
The actors were told to demand to be let free and state that they had rights. They were also told to demand food and water. The troops in turn were taught to ignore them and to order them to behave in an orderly fashion. "Civil disobedience will not be tolerated" was one of the many disturbing statements heard to emanate from the military's loud speakers.
Over the years there have been countless drills of this nature. The media simply reports them as training for dealing with foreign enemies, yet the volunteers and the participants are always told differently.
In 2005 details of just one of many Military operations on American soil was exposed in the run up to Bush's second coronation. A secret counterterrorism program code-named Power Geyser. A small group of super-secret commandos were hidden among 13000 police and troops and "stood ready with state-of-the-art weaponry to swing into action.".
There have been literally thousands of these kind of operations in the planning and going on for years now. Many designed to use the military on the streets of American cities in direct violation of Posse Comitatus. The Pentagon has a full Command in operation working on these activities, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
Whilst Studying US COIN (Counter Insurgency) doctrine at University I was subjected to weekly showings of videos where military operations were carried out in purpose built mock American towns and cities. We were also informed of how future Counter Insurgency would be predominantly conducted from Military bunkers as they had developed the technology to map out entire cities to pinpoint accuracy from satellite images. The cities in the prototypes were of course all American cities.
I remember asking the lecturer what the point was in developing this technology for use in foreign insurgency wars in places such as the mountains of Afghanistan, and why were the drills and testing of the technology being carried out purely in American towns and cities. The answer was of course that in the event of a major terror attack on US soil these types of things would go into operation. The Pentagon does indeed have "War Plans" drafted in the event of any type of terror attack, which would be coordinated by Northcom in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and would involve martial law and thousands of troops on the streets.
According to respected military affairs analyst William Arkin, Northcom has defined three levels of operations, each of which triggers a larger set of authorized activities. The levels are "extraordinary", "emergency" and "temporary". During emergencies, the military can provide similar support, mostly in response to specific events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center. It is only in the case of extraordinary domestic operations that the unique capabilities of the Defense Department are deployed. These include not just such things as air patrols to shoot down hijacked planes or the defusing of bombs and other explosives, but also bringing in intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops.
But as Arkin's article makes clear, Northcom is doing more than mere coordinating. "Under the banner of 'homeland security', the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the US."
He also said the Pentagon reviewed the Posse Comitatus Act and determined that it would not be a violation to deploy the National Guard to protect critical infrastructure in some circumstances. He said he expects more presidential directives in the future to expand the military's homeland defense role.
Then of course we have General Tommy Franks stating that a major terror attack on US soil would mean the constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Some say this is nothing new. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, former US senator Gary Hart said American founders "created such an army and called it the militia: citizen-soldiers under the immediate command of the various states that can be deployed in times of emergency. Since the late 19th century these militias have been known as the National Guard, and they were created and given constitutional status as the first responders and the first line of defense in the case of an attack on our homeland".
This is clearly an alteration of reality. The reason why the founding fathers employed militias and later created Posse Comitatus was that they knew a centralized national army could be used in a future environment to take over the country and take away the rights of everyone.
Police State infrastructure - Already in place (and in use) FEMA, Northcom and the tools of tyranny
We have further exposed how the infrastructure for a martial law police state is already in place, and in many cases is in use. We have a whole archive on the revelations that FEMA has concentration camps set up and ready to go in the event of any emergency that is deemed suitable for their use. As we have also seen recently, these camps need not have barbed wire and observation towers, they can simply be well guarded sports stadiums.
In May 2006, we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.
A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.
Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story was later confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.
Watch the video:
Please note that this video is often removed once we highlight it in articles, we encourage readers to circulate it on the web. Search youtube with this link for an alternative should the above video be removed.
A cursory re-cap of the actions of FEMA in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita two years ago also reveals how the infrastructure of the police state can and has been turned on American citizens.
FEMA deliberately sabotaged relief efforts in New Orleans, making things worse than need be.
The federal government illegally initiated total gun confiscation of law abiding citizens and forcibly removed them from their property in New Orleans. Federal forces led criminal gangs of police in an America-killing gun grab.
Along with forced gun grabs and evacuation, we have further exposed the intricacies of the operative federalized Police State, with the presence of foreign troops, SWAT teams, privately employed security mercenaries, the treatment of citizens as "insurgents" and evacuees as "internees" and the euthanization and inoculation of survivors.
The bottom line on Katrina is that whether you believe it was all incompetence or part incompetence and part malevolence, the lasting pretext is the same. When a disaster takes place, you have no rights and the federal government can arrest you if you don’t follow their every order.
FEMA clearly used the human catastrophe in New Orleans as a means of executing its decade long plans and providing the pretext for future takeover scenarios of all major American cities.
FEMA is not an elected body, it does not involve itself in public disclosures, and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars. It has more power than the president of the United States or the congress, it has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the constitution. Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under constitutional law by the congress.
In the aftermath of the hurricanes the police state was touted as the savior. So called "Homeland security experts" called for federal troops that don't need 72 hours for call-up, as some National Guard units require, capable of dropping into a disaster zone as the damage is being done, rather than afterward. The media called for the TOTAL FEDERALIZATION of America.
It was federalization and the criminal negligence and sabotage on the part of the feds that caused the mass disruption in New Orleans, yet the call was for MORE federalization? The call was for troops on our streets, stopping traffic, searching people, seizing property and making arrests?
The desperate call went up for "military authorities" to supersede "civilian authorities". When did we stop being people and become "civilians"?
FEMA executive orders have been paving the way for the police State for many years. For a full synopsis of FEMA's executive orders in light of hurricane Katrina, click here.
FEMA is not the only entity central to the continuing crackdown on American dissenters. After Katrina and before Rita, George W Bush canceled a scheduled trip to Texas and instead visited Colorado Springs, Colorado and the U.S. Northern Command Headquarters.
Our sources informed us at that time that far from this being a change of plan, Bush was visiting Northcom to be witness to a martial law takeover drill which was directly connected to Granite Shadow, which the Washington Post reported, "is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military’s extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.
A joint task force for Rita was being created under the jurisdiction of NorthCom. Operating out of Austin Texas, in liaison with NorthCom in Colorado, under the command of Army Lt. Gen. Robert Clark. A "standing joint force headquarters" was established in Austin, Texas.
Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff subsequently classified Hurricane Rita as an "incident of national significance," which justifies the activation of a so-called "National Response Plan"(NRP).
As Michael Chossudovsky pointed out in his article on this, The National Response Plan (NRP) is effective upon issuance with a phased implementation process during the first year. During the first 120 days of this implementation process, the Initial NRP (INRP), Federal Response Plan (FRP), U.S. Government Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN), and Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) remain in effect. (For further details, consult the complete document at http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf
So essentially, the period of time during which the NRP would be in operation would extend far beyond the emergency period in the disaster area. In all likelihood, the NRP would modify the functions of civilian government.
The Washington Post reported that The Northern Command would be the lead agency in domestic terror response. The Pentagon "has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans."
Northcom has a history of calling for the end of Posse Comitatus and officials there seem to be hell bent upon a military takeover. Head of Northcom Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart was quoted in the New York Times in 2002 as saying
"My view has been that Posse Comitatus will constantly be under review as we mature this command, as we do our exercises, as we interact with FEMA, F.B.I., and those lead federal agencies out there,"
This is precisely the point, the erosion of Posse Comitatus has been ongoing for a long time. As revealed earlier in this report, military takeover drills and exercises have been in operation for years.
Eberhart has also said that he is anxious to use new technology, including unmanned surveillance blimps cruising at 70,000 feet and Predator drones scanning American coastlines.
The general said it was also possible that the North American Aerospace Defense Command would expand beyond the United States and Canada to include Mexico.
"To defend this nation, we have to defend as far out as possible...Therefore we need the support of Canada and Mexico to be able to defend our interests."
A recent Council On Foreign Relations document corroborates this proposed move. The 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."
The document entitled "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, then Mexican President Vicente Fox, and then Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush’s ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
So there we have Orwell's Oceania coming to pass. A unionized Americas under the control of a military dictatorship.
Over the years we have also exposed the development of other police State weapons that make Tasers look like water pistols. See this article on The Pentagon's secret scream sonic devices that can inflict pain--or even permanent deafness. These type of devices that are routinely used in Iraq were also used in New Orleans in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.
The use of unmanned drone aircraft was also documented in New Orleans, since then such craft have been flown over American soil and are now routinely used by the Department of Homeland security. Again, such weapons are being used not only in foreign reconnaissance but also domestically for spying on "civillians" and controlling crowds. Industry representatives are enthusiastic about the drones' potential.
"I believe we will see Predator and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) watching over major events, such as the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl, in the not-too-distant future," Brad Brown, then-president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International wrote.
Alex Jones' 2004 film Martial Law: Rise of the Police State also documents the use of huge corporate sponsored surveillance blimps. The Department of Homeland Security is developing 900 ft long so called "Super Blimps" for surveillance, intended to fly about 65,000 feet, well above commercial airliner traffic.
We have also documented the rise in use of the national guard to break up public events. On multiple occasions we have carried stories, photos and video of tanks and armed troops on the streets of America. Such deployments are used not only to break up protests, but even something as insignificant as a rave in a field.
Future technology under development includes robot police that have the ability to run. Its like we are living in the Twilight Zone or in a futuristic dystopian film. Yet when you mention these kind of things to people they either don't believe you or simply laugh at you. Well here's a wake up call, IT'S THE YEAR 2007, not 1947, and these things are real and in place.
Winning the "war on terror"
The infrastructure is in place, the propaganda campaign to target American dissenters is well underway as eluded to at the beginning of this report, so what constitutes "winning" this "war on terror" for the criminal cabal heading the government?
Back in September 2006, we reported on a White House strategy document for "winning the war on terror," in which conspiracy theorists were targeted as a wellspring of terrorism. The document threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.
The document states that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."
Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."
The Neo-Con talking heads announcing that anti-war protesters and 9/11 truthers are in league with terrorists are actually parroting White House propaganda handed down to them by the Bush administration.
You can even trace the legacy right back to Bush's November 10, 2001 speech to the U.N., in which he said that "outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th" should not be tolerated.
For years we have warned that the police state is coming, how Martial Law will become the norm, how ancient laws, rights and freedoms are being overturned and replaced with repressive mechanisms of control. We warned how the mechanisms of the police state would be turned onto the average Americans who refused to go along with it.
For years we have presented the evidence, the Army War College documents, the domestic military takeover drills, the draconian legislation, officials left right and centre calling for more centralized military control domestically.
For years people refuted the evidence, or passed it off as being intended for something else, or simply refused to believe it. Now everything we warned you about is happening.
In the wake of recent natural disasters on American soil, dangerous precedents have been set. We have been forced to watch how in times of crisis we must submit and follow the orders of Federal Commanders, no matter whether they deny us basic human rights or not.
Now the propaganda is flowing in full force, media heads are attacking and labeling as terrorists anyone who stands up against the new order, including Ron Paul and his supporters.
But as sure as night follows day the propaganda is also intended to frighten and silence a hotbed of dissent and exposure that has exploded into a mainstream movement and kept freedom in America alive in the 21st century.
Website:http://www.MoveToAmend.orgMission:We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Company Overview:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
In Alex Jones' feature 
In 2005 details of just one of many Military operations on American soil was exposed in the run up to Bush's second coronation. A secret counterterrorism program code-named 
According to respected 
Northcom has a 
LOL MARK WAS THAT YOU?? at approximately 21:40 they put a brain on you and you started twinkling I think. Hahahaha.
Good for you, Mark. Good for you!
Technically, you are absolutely right. I suppose that is a good argument you can make when you're stopped at any one of the growing number of arbitrary checkpoints across the country, as they snatch you out of the car and taser you as they drag you to a patrol car and haul you downtown. By the time you get before a judge, the charges (bogus all) against you will be so overwhelming that you won't escape scot-free.
Obviously you have not had a run-in with the "law" lately. I have. So have thousands of others. Law enforcement and the courts play by the Patriot Act "rules," not by the Constitutional prohibitions. I heard one judge, in a Larry Becraft trial, clearly say he wouldn't allow the Constitution to be quoted in his courtroom. I was there and personally heard that.
Former Texas attorney Harmon Taylor resigned the bar after losing his case before the court of appeals on the Timothy McVeigh case, when they ruled that the Constitution "is not admissible evidence of law." The public was told the 30-day delay in McVeigh's execution was because they had found some misplaced FBI files they wanted McVeigh's lawyers to see, but that delay was caused by Harmon's jurisdictional challenge based on the Constitution's requirement that wrongful death is a matter over which the State has exclusive jurisdiction, when it occurs anywhere within the state other than federally-owned property. The Murrah "Federal" building was OWNED by Oklahoma City and only portions of it were LEASED to the feds.
If I have $100 but you have it locked in your safety deposit box and won't give me access to it, is it really mine?
Fred
Public perception is worth its weight in gold. If the public is led to believe that "Ron Paul can't win," can he win? If the public is led to believe that there are "only three candidates," can Ron Paul win? If the public is led to believe that Congress voted away the Bill of Rights, do you expect the public to demand enforcement of the Bill of Rights?
But we are a nation of laws, not a nation of wishes or illusions painted by TV broadcasters and commentators. So, yes, Fred, in the hypothetical example you gave, the $100 is still yours, and if I won't surrender it then you have a right to take action to get it. My decision cannot change your entitlement.
If a judge or police officer misbehaves, he doesn't have any effect on the law. The law stands until legally changed. Americans should know this well, so that at every turn we will object loudly and boldly to illegal government behavior.