US House passes Democrat-crafted “homegrown terrorism prevention”
legislation By Naomi Spencer
1 December 2007 A month ago, the US House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved passage of legislation that would set up a commission
targeting domestic “radicalization” as a threat to so-called homeland
security. Although it has received little media attention, civil liberties
groups have expressed concerns for the future of public protest and
other forms of constitutionally protected speech.
The bill, H.R. 1955, “The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism
Act of 2007,” was crafted and sponsored by Democrat Jane Harman of
California and approved by the House by a margin of 404-6. A mere three
Democrats and three Republicans voted against the bill.
Twenty-three congress members abstained, including House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. The bill
is currently pending approval in the Senate and is widely anticipated
to pass by a similar proportion before the end of the session.
Introduced in April as an amendment to the 2002 Homeland Security
Act, the legislation adds provisions for the establishment of a 10-member
commission to collect data on radicalization. Evoking the memory of the
anticommunist House Committee on Un-American Activities headed by
Joseph McCarthy, the anti-radicalization commission would be granted
authority to “hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take
such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the
Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.”
As Equal Justice Alliance director Odette Wilkens pointed out, the
commission would be empowered to subpoena and investigate anyone, and
would “create a public perception that whoever is being investigated by
the Commission must be involved in subversive or illegal activities.”
Wilkens noted to Truthout.org reporter Matt Renner, in an article
published November 29, “It would give the appearance that whoever they are
investigating is potentially a traitor or disloyal or a terrorist, even if
all they were doing was advocating lawful views.”
The commission would be composed of appointees, one chosen each
respectively by Bush, Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, the
Senate and House majority and minority leaders, and by the ranking majority
and minority members of the two congressional homeland security
committees. Such a selection process would certainly result in an extremely
right-wing panel.
The language of the bill is very broad and includes in its
designations of terrorist activity a category of intent. For example,
“ideologically based violence” is defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened
use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group
or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.” No force or
violence need have occurred; the government commission needs only
charge, without the burden of evidence, that an individual or group thought
about violence.
Similarly, the term “violent radicalization” is defined as “the
process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose
of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political,
religious, or social change.” The definition of “an extremist belief
system” is not specified, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the
commission.
“Homegrown terrorism” is defined by the bill as “the use, planned
use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual
born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or
any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United
States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any
segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
The implications of this definition of terrorism are far-reaching.
Participants in protests against US policy, for instance, could be
designated as terrorists if the conduct—or intent—of any individual were
alleged by police to be violent.
Under the legislation, after 18 months the anti-radicalization
commission would report to Congress on its findings, then establish a
university-based organization, the “Center of Excellence for the Study of
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.”
The Center’s mission would not be limited to research, but also would
include a mandate to “contribute to the establishment of training,
written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional
resources to aid in combating violent radicalism and homegrown terrorism”
in coordination with federal, state and local homeland security
officials. This could have a definite chilling effect on the political
activity and exercise of free speech on campuses because of the virtual
enlistment of students and academics into the campaigns of the government’s
intelligence apparatus.
The legislation specifically singles out the Internet as a “weapon”
for domestic radicalization. In remarks introducing the legislation
November 6 to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Congresswoman
Harman said, “There can be no doubt: the Internet is increasingly being
used as a tool to reach and radicalize Americans and legal residents.” The
web, Harman said, allowed Americans “to become indoctrinated by
extremists and to learn how to kill their neighbors ... from the comfort of
their own living rooms.”
In the same speech, Harman portrayed American youth in a thoroughly
contemptuous manner. “Combine ... personal adolescent upheaval with the
explosion of information technologies and communications tools,” she
said, “tools which American kids are using to broadcast messages from Al
Qaeda—and there is a road map to terror, a ‘retail outlet’ for anger
and warped aspirations. Link that intent with a trained terrorist
operative who has actual capability, and a ‘Made in the USA’ suicide bomber is
born.”
Even more absurdly, she added, “How we address violent
radicalization—while respecting the Constitution in the process—is not easy. There is
no magic pill or rulebook or law that will fix this.”
It is already clear that not the slightest attempt will be made, by
legislators or by the empanelled commission, to actually explain the
social origins of unrest, let alone the political aggravators of
extremism.
Both the bill’s content and its landslide congressional support
underscore the fact that the entire “war on terror” is geared toward
quashing political opposition and dissent and dismantling constitutional
protections, not fighting a supposed terrorist threat. While targeting the
civil liberties of the population as a whole, it poses a particular
threat to workers’ and students’ organizations as well as left-wing and
socialist parties.
As with the bill’s predecessors since 2001—including the Patriot Act,
the Homeland Security Act, and the Military Commissions Act—the
Democrats are working to actively undermine free speech and protections
against government surveillance in their role as the nominal opposition in
Congress.
December 01, 2007
Homegrown terrorism passes; more on this later!!
Canada's New Terrorism Bills - Time to Debate!!
Canada's New Terrorism Bills: Slow Down and Debate
JURIST Guest Columnist Kent Roach of the University Toronto Faculty of Law says that Canada's parliament needs to slow down and conduct an intelligent debate on the merits of two new anti-terrorism bills introduced in quick succession last week by Canada's minority Conservative government...
 | |
| |
Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day tabled new legislation in the House of Commons last Monday to allow British-style special advocates to play a role in security certificate cases that are used to detain and deport non-citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism. The bill responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision earlier this year that the existing legislation was unconstitutional.
On Tuesday the government tabled another bill in the Senate to revive investigative hearings and preventive arrests. These Criminal Code powers were introduced after 9/11 but expired in March, 2007 after the government failed to convince Parliament to renew them for three years. The government now proposes to include the powers in the Criminal Code, subject to a some changes and a 5 year renewable sunset.
The official opposition - the Liberal Party - has indicated some preliminary support for both bills and they appear likely to pass. There is a need to slow down and carefully consider both bills, as well as important work already done by Parliamentary committees on anti-terrorism law.
When it enacted the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA) in the aftermath of 9/11, Parliament knew it had acted quickly and without precedent. It required a comprehensive review of the act to be completed by December, 2004. Early this year, a Commons and a Senate committee finally completed their reviews and issued comprehensive reports. Unfortunately, their work was ignored by the media, the public and Parliament itself. Only some of the recommendations made by these committees have found their way into the new bills.
The last time Parliament debated security issues was in February of this year when the opposition parties defeated the government’s motion to extend preventive arrests and investigative hearings. Regardless of one’s views about the merits of the motion, the debate in Parliament was dismal.
The government accused the opposition of being unsympathetic to the victims of terrorism. The opposition accused the government of engaging in slurs. What got lost in all this partisan bickering was reasonable discussion of the merits of the two controversial provisions that expired. Parliament now has a second chance to debate these proposals on their merits. The task will not be easy and it should not be rushed.
Anti-terrorism law is complex and difficult. Fortunately, the reports of both the Commons and Senate
The Senate committee warned that any new special advocate should be able to consult with the affected person after having seen the secret evidence. This, however, is neither prohibited or guaranteed in the bill before Parliament. The bill is also silent on whether special advocates will have adequate resources and be able to demand disclosure and call witnesses. These are crucial issues that require debate.
Both committees dealt with how to respond to the problems created by secret evidence used in security certificates and some other security proceedings. Both committees recommended that special advocates be available whenever the government makes secret submissions in security proceedings. The government’s bill, however, only applies to security certificates. There needs to be discussion of this issue.
The Senate Committee also provided some wise advice about how the government should respond to the legal quagmire created by security certificates. The current bill, however, is focused on the immediate task of responding to the Supreme Court’s decision in Charkaoui and must be enacted before the end of February 2008 before the Court’s remedy takes effect. The long term viability of the security certificate process needs to be debated.
The bill is based on the British special advocate model, but the British experience has not been altogether happy. Canada can learn from the British, but here the under-resourced Parliamentary committees unfortunately did not do their homework. There is also a need to consider other Canadian alternatives to British special advocates including those previously used by the Security Intelligence Review Commission and the Arar Commission. Security cleared counsel used in both these Canadian processes are more robust than the British special advocates because they can communicate with the affected parties after having seen the secret information and because they have the power to demand disclosure and call witnesses.
There are other details in the new special advocate bill that require consideration. The six month review of detention under security certificates is proposed to occur only following the conclusion of each preceding review. Does this mean that the six month clock only starts ticking after a judge has crafted and delivered his or her reasons?
A special advocate is allowed to make submissions about “the relevance, reliability and sufficiency” of the information presented by the Minister to justify the security certificate, but has no explicit powers to call witnesses or seek disclosure. The judge is now asked to receive into evidence only “reliable” information, but what about information that may be prejudicial but perhaps not relevant?
The new bill concerning investigative hearings and preventive arrests also requires careful consideration. A requirement of reasonable attempts to obtain information has been added as a safeguard, but the new legislation has not codified the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling that immunity for compelled statements should be extended to extradition and immigration proceedings.
There is also a troubling new incorporation of an obscure provision in s.707 of the Criminal Code that could allow up to 90 days detention in a case in which an arrest warrant has been issued because of concerns that a person subject to an investigative hearing is about to abscond.
The requirement to bring a person subject to a preventive arrest before a judge has been changed from “as soon as possible” to “as soon is feasible”. Is there a difference? The arrestee can be still detained on any “just cause” despite the fact that the Supreme Court has struck down the same phrase in Canadian bail laws as excessively vague.
The judge is still able to adjourn a hearing for 48 hours, but no reference is made to where arrestees will be held and whether they can be questioned during that time.
Both bills deserve careful and informed scrutiny in the committees.
Parliamentarians should also consider whether other recommendations made by the committees that conducted a comprehensive review of the ATA should be considered. Parliament has a chance to redeem itself from the partisan debate over investigative hearings earlier this year. But it must slow up and take the time and care that is necessary to consider these complex bills.
Canada will soon find out whether a minority Parliament is up to the task of conducting an intelligent debate about the merits of new anti-terrorism legislation. If Parliament fails again or becomes deadlocked, the courts will by default have to play the dominant role in reforming security legislation. Moreover, Canadians will be ill-served by their elected representatives on one of the defining issues of our times. committees explain many of the difficult issues. But before informed public debate about security legislation can start, people need to read and pay attention to the reports and the two new bills before Parliament.
Kent Roach is a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto. He has written widely on Canadian and global anti-terrorism laws including a recent study, Better Late Than Never? The Canadian Parliamentary Review of the Anti-Terrorism Act, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy
On Tuesday the government tabled another bill in the Senate to revive investigative hearings and preventive arrests. These Criminal Code powers were introduced after 9/11 but expired in March, 2007 after the government failed to convince Parliament to renew them for three years. The government now proposes to include the powers in the Criminal Code, subject to a some changes and a 5 year renewable sunset.
The official opposition - the Liberal Party - has indicated some preliminary support for both bills and they appear likely to pass. There is a need to slow down and carefully consider both bills, as well as important work already done by Parliamentary committees on anti-terrorism law.
When it enacted the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA) in the aftermath of 9/11, Parliament knew it had acted quickly and without precedent. It required a comprehensive review of the act to be completed by December, 2004. Early this year, a Commons and a Senate committee finally completed their reviews and issued comprehensive reports. Unfortunately, their work was ignored by the media, the public and Parliament itself. Only some of the recommendations made by these committees have found their way into the new bills.
The last time Parliament debated security issues was in February of this year when the opposition parties defeated the government’s motion to extend preventive arrests and investigative hearings. Regardless of one’s views about the merits of the motion, the debate in Parliament was dismal.
The government accused the opposition of being unsympathetic to the victims of terrorism. The opposition accused the government of engaging in slurs. What got lost in all this partisan bickering was reasonable discussion of the merits of the two controversial provisions that expired. Parliament now has a second chance to debate these proposals on their merits. The task will not be easy and it should not be rushed.
Anti-terrorism law is complex and difficult. Fortunately, the reports of both the Commons and Senate
The Senate committee warned that any new special advocate should be able to consult with the affected person after having seen the secret evidence. This, however, is neither prohibited or guaranteed in the bill before Parliament. The bill is also silent on whether special advocates will have adequate resources and be able to demand disclosure and call witnesses. These are crucial issues that require debate.
Both committees dealt with how to respond to the problems created by secret evidence used in security certificates and some other security proceedings. Both committees recommended that special advocates be available whenever the government makes secret submissions in security proceedings. The government’s bill, however, only applies to security certificates. There needs to be discussion of this issue.
The Senate Committee also provided some wise advice about how the government should respond to the legal quagmire created by security certificates. The current bill, however, is focused on the immediate task of responding to the Supreme Court’s decision in Charkaoui and must be enacted before the end of February 2008 before the Court’s remedy takes effect. The long term viability of the security certificate process needs to be debated.
The bill is based on the British special advocate model, but the British experience has not been altogether happy. Canada can learn from the British, but here the under-resourced Parliamentary committees unfortunately did not do their homework. There is also a need to consider other Canadian alternatives to British special advocates including those previously used by the Security Intelligence Review Commission and the Arar Commission. Security cleared counsel used in both these Canadian processes are more robust than the British special advocates because they can communicate with the affected parties after having seen the secret information and because they have the power to demand disclosure and call witnesses.
There are other details in the new special advocate bill that require consideration. The six month review of detention under security certificates is proposed to occur only following the conclusion of each preceding review. Does this mean that the six month clock only starts ticking after a judge has crafted and delivered his or her reasons?
A special advocate is allowed to make submissions about “the relevance, reliability and sufficiency” of the information presented by the Minister to justify the security certificate, but has no explicit powers to call witnesses or seek disclosure. The judge is now asked to receive into evidence only “reliable” information, but what about information that may be prejudicial but perhaps not relevant?
The new bill concerning investigative hearings and preventive arrests also requires careful consideration. A requirement of reasonable attempts to obtain information has been added as a safeguard, but the new legislation has not codified the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling that immunity for compelled statements should be extended to extradition and immigration proceedings.
There is also a troubling new incorporation of an obscure provision in s.707 of the Criminal Code that could allow up to 90 days detention in a case in which an arrest warrant has been issued because of concerns that a person subject to an investigative hearing is about to abscond.
The requirement to bring a person subject to a preventive arrest before a judge has been changed from “as soon as possible” to “as soon is feasible”. Is there a difference? The arrestee can be still detained on any “just cause” despite the fact that the Supreme Court has struck down the same phrase in Canadian bail laws as excessively vague.
The judge is still able to adjourn a hearing for 48 hours, but no reference is made to where arrestees will be held and whether they can be questioned during that time.
Both bills deserve careful and informed scrutiny in the committees.
Parliamentarians should also consider whether other recommendations made by the committees that conducted a comprehensive review of the ATA should be considered. Parliament has a chance to redeem itself from the partisan debate over investigative hearings earlier this year. But it must slow up and take the time and care that is necessary to consider these complex bills.
Canada will soon find out whether a minority Parliament is up to the task of conducting an intelligent debate about the merits of new anti-terrorism legislation. If Parliament fails again or becomes deadlocked, the courts will by default have to play the dominant role in reforming security legislation. Moreover, Canadians will be ill-served by their elected representatives on one of the defining issues of our times. committees explain many of the difficult issues. But before informed public debate about security legislation can start, people need to read and pay attention to the reports and the two new bills before Parliament.
Kent Roach is a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto. He has written widely on Canadian and global anti-terrorism laws including a recent study, Better Late Than Never? The Canadian Parliamentary Review of the Anti-Terrorism Act, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy
| October 29, 2007 |
Bellinger, TOP State Department legal adviser on WATERBOARDING
GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States, accused of using torture on terrorism suspects, should make clearer what it permits during interrogation and what it does not, the State Department's top lawyer said on Tuesday.
John Bellinger, legal adviser at the U.S. State Department, said he was making confidential recommendations to Attorney-General Michael Mukasey and putting forth what he called his own "strong views on a number of these practices."
"As legal adviser for the State Department, I think it is a concern that the United States cannot be clearer on issues like these that are raised.
"It makes it more difficult for the United States to reaffirm our commitment to international law in the world,"
Bellinger told a news conference on the sidelines of the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
This was because the United States, like other countries including Britain, does not comment on intelligence matters, according to the senior U.S. official.
"I think there is a growing recognition ... about the need for greater clarity about what is permitted and what is prohibited,"he said.
Human rights groups have accused the United States of torturing suspects. Torture is illegal under the U.S. criminal code as well as under a international treaty that prohibits it under all circumstances, which the United States has ratified.
Despite President George W. Bush's assurances that he prohibits torture, it is unclear how detained suspects are treated since he refuses to disclose interrogation techniques.
A U.S. army field manual on interrogations bans internationally condemned techniques such as "waterboarding," which simulates drowning. There were reports that the CIA used waterboarding after the September 11 attacks.
Mukasey testified in his Senate confirmation hearing that he did not know if waterboarding was illegal torture, but that he regarded the practice as "repugnant."
The retired judge, confirmed as attorney-general earlier this month, has given "high priority" to a review of confidential U.S. techniques, according to Bellinger.
Bellinger said the U.S. army manual which issues "very clear guidance on what is permitted and what is prohibited for our troops" had followed much debate.
"There were questions raised about different practices in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and other places...There is now a long list of prohibited procedures, including a prohibition on waterboarding, which I personally welcome,"he said.
(Editing by Jonathan Lynn and Robert Woodward)
Copyright 2007 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yeah, like waterboarding works! It does NOT and it is contrary to international law.
Full stop.
US and torture from law professor Benjamin Davis
'Clarifying' the Geneva Conventions: A Ploy to Limit US Culpability
JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says official US calls for "clarifying" the Geneva Conventions are part of a ploy to limit their application and enable prisoners to be treated outside the law without inviting culpability for war crimes and torture...
 | |
| |
State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger III has called for "clarification" of Geneva Conventions in the margins of the 30th international conference of the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent in Geneva (see this report
Bellinger said, on JURIST).
The reason for these arguments is not one of principle but it is rather one of decisions made to be able to treat persons outside of law. The law is used to protect the persons who conspired to act outside of law who do not want to face any consequences for the decisions taken. As long as these persons are able to keep us guessing and arguing about the applicability of Geneva Conventions they can keep us from looking at their intended acts that are grave breaches and war crimes. We should not be duped by this ploy.
Bellinger went on to say,
Bellinger reaffirms the United States opposition to torture, yet even that reaffirmation is weak. He speaks of having strong personal beliefs and we are supposed to understand that as meaning that he will advise Mukasey to find that waterboarding is torture. But, the fact is that all those policies were worked out when Bellinger was at the White House and on into his time at State. I have no faith that his strong beliefs depart in any significant manner from those of the Haynes’, Bradbury’s, Yoo’s, Goldsmith’s, Gonzales', Addington’s or others on these topics who have created and extended the legal argumentation to enable U.S. torture in this armed conflict. Nothing in his tenure at State suggests his views are different from those of these other apologists for torture.
If there is one lesson from the torture debates it is that there is an almost unending availability of clever lawyers willing to build up sandcastle analyses to enable the sovereign to argue that what he/she is doing is perfectly legal. As long as those lawyers can include an Attorney General willing to see this as misfeasance the clever lawyer gets off scot-free as does the sovereign who sought the legal advice to allow the illegality.
If one is willing to take the scales from one’s eyes and just call things as they are, then the Bellingers are stopped in their tracks for their enabling of grave breaches and war crimes. That would be a clarification of American high-level civilian and military culpability that has been long delayed by efforts at spinning the War on Terror. It is a day of reckoning that is long awaited.
Bellinger said, on JURIST).
[The Conventions] do not apply to every situation. They in fact apply to conflicts between states. So therefore the Geneva Conventions do not give you the answers about who can be held in a conflict with a non-state actor. They do not tell you how long you can hold someone in a conflict with a non-state actor. They do not tell you what countries to return people to. In a normal conflict where one is fighting one or maybe two countries, at the end of the conflict you return the combatants to those countries. In fighting al-Qaida we've found that we have detained individuals from more than two dozen countries around the world. The Geneva Conventions do not provide answers to those questions so they don't provide sufficient guidance to countries as to what law to apply.I want to emphasize the consistent and relentless effort of those speaking for the United States Government to keep trying to convince all of us domestically and internationally that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to this armed conflict. It started soon after 9/11 and was enshrined very early on in the February 7, 2002 Presidential Military Order. Bellinger is one more of a long line of persons working overtime to argue for holes and seek our acquiescence in this view.
The reason for these arguments is not one of principle but it is rather one of decisions made to be able to treat persons outside of law. The law is used to protect the persons who conspired to act outside of law who do not want to face any consequences for the decisions taken. As long as these persons are able to keep us guessing and arguing about the applicability of Geneva Conventions they can keep us from looking at their intended acts that are grave breaches and war crimes. We should not be duped by this ploy.
Bellinger went on to say,
The United States is firmly committed to the law that applies. We're also committed to working with other countries around the world to develop new legal norms in cases where existing law does not give one the answers. But what we do think is problematic is to simply suggest that the Geneva Conventions provide all of the answers in fighting international terrorism, and that countries simply need to follow the Geneva Conventions and that is the end of the matter.In his comments, Bellinger did not talk about the core aspects of Geneva treatment of persons held but more about issues like when you have to return people. It is clear to me that the lever of the issue of when to return people is trying to be used to encourage a review of several aspects of the Geneva Conventions. The reason for this effort is that if one can convince the world to create a new protocol to deal with things one argues were not covered in the prior Conventions or Protocols, then one is able to vindicate the United States Government’s position since early on in the "War on Terror" that the Geneva Conventions and Protocols did not apply to the conflict. Through this maneuver, any prosecution for those leadership persons of the United States for grave breaches and war crimes for existing Geneva law violations before international criminal tribunals would then be undermined on the basis of the principle of legality.
Bellinger reaffirms the United States opposition to torture, yet even that reaffirmation is weak. He speaks of having strong personal beliefs and we are supposed to understand that as meaning that he will advise Mukasey to find that waterboarding is torture. But, the fact is that all those policies were worked out when Bellinger was at the White House and on into his time at State. I have no faith that his strong beliefs depart in any significant manner from those of the Haynes’, Bradbury’s, Yoo’s, Goldsmith’s, Gonzales', Addington’s or others on these topics who have created and extended the legal argumentation to enable U.S. torture in this armed conflict. Nothing in his tenure at State suggests his views are different from those of these other apologists for torture.
If there is one lesson from the torture debates it is that there is an almost unending availability of clever lawyers willing to build up sandcastle analyses to enable the sovereign to argue that what he/she is doing is perfectly legal. As long as those lawyers can include an Attorney General willing to see this as misfeasance the clever lawyer gets off scot-free as does the sovereign who sought the legal advice to allow the illegality.
If one is willing to take the scales from one’s eyes and just call things as they are, then the Bellingers are stopped in their tracks for their enabling of grave breaches and war crimes. That would be a clarification of American high-level civilian and military culpability that has been long delayed by efforts at spinning the War on Terror. It is a day of reckoning that is long awaited.
Benjamin Davis is a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law
see also: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/11/mukaseys-letter-not-good-enough.php
Mukasey's Letter: Not Good Enough
JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says that Judge Michael Mukasey's written response to Senate Judiciary Committee follow-up inquiries concerning his views on the legality of waterboarding and torture demonstrate views of America's obligations under international law so limited and problematic that he should not be confirmed...
| |
| |
First, Judge Mukasey notes that "some Members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees", have been briefed on the specifics of "a program run by the Central Intelligence Agency". In the context of the confirmation process, it is essential that we now ask who were those members of Congress, whether they were briefed on waterboarding and other techniques as part of that briefing, and what were the members' views on those techniques. It is far too convenient to hold Judge Mukasey’s feet to the fire on waterboarding without also holding accountable the members of Congress who have been briefed on this subject. This information is important in the context of Judge Mukasey’s confirmation because his phrase can be easily read as a veiled warning to those Congresspersons that they will be “outed” for what they allowed to go forward. That veiled warning has the effect of chilling further inquiry by other members of Congress for fear of alienating colleagues. We need to cut through this gamesmanship and get the truth out. Americans can handle the truth.
Second, Judge Mukasey, in addressing the legality of "coercive interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, provides an instance of the kind of legal analysis he would make as Attorney General as a way of assisting the committee in understanding his work method if he were to be confirmed. He essentially limits his analysis to federal statutes that are enabling legislation of the Convention Against Torture and Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment (“Convention Against Torture”) and the Constitutional standard of “shocks the conscience” that is said to apply pursuant to a United States reservation to that treaty. He makes passing reference to the Geneva Conventions and to the Convention Against Torture itself.
That is not enough. Let me be specific:
- Judge Mukasey's analysis does not take into account the prohibition against torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). His analysis does not take into account the non-derogability of those prohibitions even in times of public emergency as expressed in Article 4 of the ICCPR.
- His analysis does not take into account the question of whether the US reservation to the Convention Against Torture is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty and, as a matter of international law, of no effect. His analysis also does not express clearly whether he subscribes to the position that said reservation is only substantive (as was stated by Abram Sofaer, the negotiator of that treaty for the United States, in his January 2005 testimony to the committee) or whether he subscribes to the view that it is both substantive and geographic in limitation (i.e. only within the United States) as was stated by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This point is important since detainees are essentially held abroad.
- His analysis does not take into account the fact that foreigners held by the United States are subject to the protection of the state of their nationality. Said state, as Australia did for David Hicks, will insist that their citizens be treated in accordance with the requirements of international law applicable. He does not seem aware that internal statutes of the United States are of no moment to such foreign states. What is important to those states is whether the United States is in compliance with the language of the relevant international law obligation (such as the Convention Against Torture) – not United States domestic law. He does not see that the internal law (which he might have used in his court) cannot be used in this non-court context on the international plane to extract the United States from its international obligations.
- His analysis refers to Geneva Common Article 3 War Crimes but does not address the question of liability for Non-Common Article 3 War Crimes. In Hamdan the Supreme Court only said that Common Article 3 applied without reaching the broader question of whether other articles of the Geneva Conventions apply in the current armed conflicts. A careful analysis would therefore have looked at the non-Common Article 3 articles in the Geneva Convention III on Prisoners of War as well as the non-Common Article 3 articles in the Geneva Convention IV on Civilians including protected persons and security detainees. His analysis does none of that and therefore is unacceptably cursory. He presents a cramped vision of Geneva Conventions applicability that seems even narrower than that which Jack Goldsmith took but closer to that of David Addington, which I find extremely problematic. His vision limits the analysis to the detriment of evaluating waterboarding as a per se war crime under these other provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
- He appears to be applying domestic U.S. standards for treaty interpretation and not international standards such as the Vienna Convention Law of Treaties which has been seen as authoritative by the United States in the past. With regard to the Convention Against Torture, it is of great concern that in his analysis he makes no mention of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties with regard to interpretation of our obligations. Rather than only referencing a couple of internal cases to describe the court’s “shocks the conscience” standard, I hoped that Judge Mukasey would have taken into greater account the evaluation to be done is in the context of compliance with treaty obligations of the United States – not just compliance with a Constitutional standard. In a setting where he will be under enormous pressure to use internal law interpretations of the treaty that are the President’s and by definition self-serving, his inability to even bring forward the idea of the more traditional international standard is deeply troubling. Thus, the evaluation of the “shocks the conscience” standard would need to take into account concerns such as compliance with the object and purpose of the treaty, the traditional methods in international law of interpretation of treaties, and issues of whether the “shocks the conscience” reservation is an improper derogation from peremptory norms. None of that appears in the four-page letter, nor is it intimated that he would consider such matters. This type of analysis is well-known by those steeped in international law but possibly less familiar to persons who work essentially in U.S. foreign relations law We are all aware of the separation of powers, but neither the President, the Congress, nor the Supreme Court are above the United States. The treaty obligations (as well as customary international law obligations) fall squarely on the United States and his analysis in domestic law of “shocks the conscience” should be tempered by this international background. This type of analysis is all the more important in a context where the techniques are being applied to foreigners who are subject to the protection of the state of their nationality. On the state to state level, the internal law modifications of the United States to treaty and customary international law obligations are of no moment.
- In addition to not making any reference to the ICCPR in his analysis, he makes no reference to customary international humanitarian law, human rights law, law of diplomatic protection, or international criminal law. These additional areas of international law and the jurisprudence of international tribunals from the Nuremberg trials or the Tokyo trials onward are not referenced or analyzed in any meaningful manner. In the context of an armed conflict of global proportions, that lack of familiarity and absence in his legal analysis are of concern.
- There is no evidence that Judge Mukasey looked at the relevant state practice of other states under treaty or customary international law with regard to evaluating waterboarding or at the American jurisprudence on the subject in domestic or in international tribunals we helped to create over the past 100 years. That is not good enough these days.
Third, Judge Mukasey's analysis purports to present great concern for the impact of his comments on the personal jeopardy of those in the field or those charged with reviewing conduct of those in the field. His loyalty – upwards or downwards – is misplaced. It pains me greatly that his solicitude for those persons seems far greater than what I would hope is the central concern – defending and protecting the United States. In his role as Attorney General, an important part of the task ahead will be to cleanse the state itself of its criminality: whether at the level of those who wrote the shameless memos (that are more than mistakes), those who ordered the memos, or those down below to the lowest level implementer of the policy. It would seem that a truly independent person would show now a willingness to follow the facts where they lead both up and down and not personal loyalty concerns. If someone was induced in error as part of the common plan by someone above in the hierarchy, Judge Mukasey may determine to be solicitous towards such a person in his investigation and discretion as to prosecute. But, as the Attorney General nominee, these type of personal, almost managerial, concerns are beneath the office of the Attorney General.
Fourth, because of what is not said in Judge Mukasey's analysis above, I am worried about his commitment to transparency in his approach to the Attorney General position. Maybe one way he could show that openness would be if he committed to release or examine releasing the International Committee of the Red Cross report on the detention and interrogation techniques in the CIA Black Sites referenced in a recent New Yorker article. That report no doubt has the truth on what we have been doing. Rather than playing internal law semantic games, the discussion of the ICRC would point out whether in our practice we have complied with the international obligations that fall upon the United States as a whole and for which we would expect the Attorney General to have great concern. Those who have read the report in Congress seem to suggest that we have failed miserably. Let the American people know what our leaders and the detainees know. Have we been leveled with by our leaders? We can handle the truth.
Fifth, it pains me greatly that Judge Mukasey has not simply said that “waterboarding is torture and illegal.” It pains me greatly that the international component of his analysis is not as extensive as I think it should be of the Attorney General who would serve at this crucial time.
For these reasons, as a citizen I remain extremely troubled by Judge Mukasey’s nomination and suggest that the Senate not confirm him. If he asks why, someone might respond as Churchill responded to an employee he had fired: “Not up to the job.”
Fourth, because of what is not said in Judge Mukasey's analysis above, I am worried about his commitment to transparency in his approach to the Attorney General position. Maybe one way he could show that openness would be if he committed to release or examine releasing the International Committee of the Red Cross report on the detention and interrogation techniques in the CIA Black Sites referenced in a recent New Yorker article. That report no doubt has the truth on what we have been doing. Rather than playing internal law semantic games, the discussion of the ICRC would point out whether in our practice we have complied with the international obligations that fall upon the United States as a whole and for which we would expect the Attorney General to have great concern. Those who have read the report in Congress seem to suggest that we have failed miserably. Let the American people know what our leaders and the detainees know. Have we been leveled with by our leaders? We can handle the truth.
Fifth, it pains me greatly that Judge Mukasey has not simply said that “waterboarding is torture and illegal.” It pains me greatly that the international component of his analysis is not as extensive as I think it should be of the Attorney General who would serve at this crucial time.
For these reasons, as a citizen I remain extremely troubled by Judge Mukasey’s nomination and suggest that the Senate not confirm him. If he asks why, someone might respond as Churchill responded to an employee he had fired: “Not up to the job.”
Benjamin Davis is a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law
| November 02, 2007 |
Looking at HR 1528, Sensenbrenner's FASCISM
You've Been Drafted: Uncle Sam Wants You for the War on Drugs
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
This bill would have serious consequences for our democracy, requiring you to spy on all your neighbors, including going undercover and wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to become a spy for the government would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.
We need your help to fight this bill, including your ideas.
We alerted you last week to the bill, entitled "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005" (H.R. 1528). Thousands of you have faxed Congress in opposition to the bill and we've already raised $2,000 online to fight it. Thank you!
We already told you about many of the terrible provisions in this legislation, but we are especially concerned about a section of the bill that turns every American into an agent of the state. Here's how it works:
If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.
Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:
- You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.
- Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.
- You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.
- Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.
In each of these cases you face jail time if you don't call the police within 24 hours. It doesn't matter if the offender is your friend or relative. It also doesn't matter if you need 48 hours to think about it. You have to report the person to the government within 24 hours or go to jail. You also have to assist the government in every way, including wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to cooperate would cost you at least two years in prison (possibly up to ten). In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.
This is what we're up against in Congress and, as I told you last week, it's not going to be easy. Sensenbrenner, the chair of the powerful Judiciary Committee, usually gets what he wants. Lots of people are afraid to challenge him. But we have a duty to our children to stop our country from turning into a police state. I'm sure you feel this duty, as well.
Here's what you can do:
- If you haven't already, please e-mail your member of Congress.
- Send us your creative ideas. How can we galvanize the American people against this bill? Email actionfeedback@drugpolicy.org .
- If you didn't give money last week, please give today. Even $25 goes a long way (for instance, $25 will allow 100 voters to fax their members of Congress in opposition to this bill.)
- Submit a letter-to-the-editor to your local paper urging your member of Congress to oppose the bill.
- Send this email to everyone you know. Unless tens of thousands of Americans speak up this bill could become law. It's already passed out of subcommittee. The sponsor is now trying to line up the votes he needs to get it out of the full committee. From there it goes to the floor for a full House vote.
The provision that would turn Americans into spies is not the only thing wrong with this bill. Read the full text of HR 1528 and learn more.
Sincerely,
Bill PiperDirector of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance
CROSSPOST update on FINLAND and the massacre
This is an excellent precis about what the Finnish massacre is really about and a good look at what is entailed in gun confiscations.
I am NOT a rightwinger if you do not know, but you'll find this of high interest. But I do contend we are ALL being had as the militarization of all criminal justice proceeds.
Incidentally, someone informed me recently that young kids are being permitted to buy TASERS. They think that they are fun to use at parties where people get high and then stun someone. Sigh. I knew that; but the age at which they have acess to them is getting younger and younger. Will someone please BAN these weapons of torture; they are NOT the same as gunz.
Incidentally, someone informed me recently that young kids are being permitted to buy TASERS. They think that they are fun to use at parties where people get high and then stun someone. Sigh. I knew that; but the age at which they have acess to them is getting younger and younger. Will someone please BAN these weapons of torture; they are NOT the same as gunz.
Veeger
Inter Arma
Friday 30 Novembere, 2007 by Baron Bodissey
I have long been aware of the Finnish writer and blogger Jussi Halla-aho because of his links to Gates of Vienna. However, since his work was mostly in Finnish, I didn’t know much about him.He wrote me a couple of days ago to let me know that he had written an article on the recent Jokela school massacre which he subsequently translated into English.
Tundra Tabloids covered the Jokela shootings the day they happened, and here’s a news story about the incident from the November 7th edition of the English-language version of Helsingin Sanomat.
It’s no surprise that Finland, like most other modern Western democracies, responded to the school shootings with a move to crack down on guns. Jussi Halla-aho has his opinions on what is happening; his article is posted below (see the original on his website to find all the hyperlinks).
Inter Arma
by Jussi Halla-aho
In the wake of the Jokela School Shooting I have an urge to say a word or two in defence of guns and gun ownership. Someone may find this tasteless, but I consider it much more tasteless that our fanatically anti-gun press, led by Helsingin Sanomat, is making shameless use of the Jokela massacre to stir up hysteria and push their own goals.
We have seen this happen before in Britain after Dunblane, in Germany after Erfurt, in Australia after Monash University, etc. Following an atrocity the pro-control lobby makes a swift attempt to utilize the understandable panic to achieve their predefined goal, a ban on private gun ownership. They strike immediately, so as not to give people time to cool down and put things in their proper context.Helsingin Sanomat asks in its reader survey whether there should be a total ban on private gun ownership. (For the current legislative situation, see Wikipedia.) The paper has also, rather artificially one might say, linked the Jokela incident to the on-going dispute between Finland and the EU Comission on the right of minors between 15 and 17 years of age to possess firearms and use them independently for hunting and target shooting.
Let us ponder for a moment on these proposed prohibitions and restrictions. They imply an attack against existing rights (private gun ownership) and private property (privately owned firearms), that is, tough measures from both a juridical and an ethical point of view. Before such steps are taken, at least three questions must be thoroughly considered:
a) Is the proposal feasible? For instance, are the costs of implementation in any proportion to the potential profit?
b) Is the general good obtained in any proportion to the damage caused to the individual?
c) Does the measure address the problem? That is, is it realistic to expect that the measure affects the problem that we wish to solve?
Let us begin with a). What does it mean to ban private gun ownership? Does it mean that 1) the authorities stop issuing new licences now, but those that were issued prior to the ban remain valid; or that 2) the existing licences are revoked and the guns in question are confiscated?
If we choose the option 1), we won’t achieve anything. Somebody who does not know much about guns may not realize it, but firearms do not compare with digital cameras or television sets, which have a very limited service life and break down within ten years from the moment of purchase. Firearms are fairly simple mechanical devices, built from tough materials, whose functional life span, with low levels of use and proper maintenance, may reach hundreds of years. They can be repaired, serviced and even built from scratch with simple hand tools. If gun licences cease to be granted, firearms dealers will be out of business. When that happens, there will be no ammunition available. With no ammunition, the existing guns will be used less and less, which, in turn, decreases their natural wear and thus increases their life-expectancy.
If we opt for 2), we must figure out a procedure for taking away guns from their owners. Confiscating legally acquired and legally kept private property by retroactive legislation is extremely difficult, owing to the general laws protecting private property. What might come in question is the expropriation of the guns against their market value.
Another thing that may be unclear to someone not familiar with guns is that firearms are expensive devices. Huge amounts of money has been invested in them. Their prices vary between 100 Euros and thousands of Euros. At the moment there are some 1,600,000 licenced and privately owned firearms in Finland, of which about 80 per cent are hunting weapons, that is, shotguns and rifles. Let us present a very moderate estimate that the average price of a privately owned gun in Finland is 300 Euros. It is likely to be more.
The mere condemnation awards would cost our government a minimum of 480,000,000 Euros. (The annual state budget is around 30 billion Euros.) Following the expropriation, something would have to be done with one and a half million guns. They could be either stored, destroyed or sold. Selling the guns abroad would hardly be acceptable, given that this would mean just transferring the problem that was supposed to be solved by the expropriation. Storing a million and a half firearms would mean horrible construction and security costs, not to mention the permanent security risk involved. Destroying the guns would likely cost even more. Firearms are not just metal scrap that can be tossed into a melting pot. They consist of heavy metals, light alloys, wood, plastic and various composite materials. They would have to be disassembled manually, one by one.
Where, exactly, would this money come from?
Another possibility, and the one undoubtedly favored by the hoplophobic Left, would be to confiscate the guns without compensations. That would serve those trigger-happy Rambos right! However, the authorities must act within the limits set by the law. The confiscation of legally acquired and kept property without compensations would require wrecking the entire legislation protecting private property. Such a reform would not have a chance of passing the parliamentary process. Why? Because there are guns in more than a half of the Finnish households, and these households consist of people who vote.
- - - - - - - - -
Even if a law enabling the confiscation did pass the legislative apparatus, the guns could not be taken. By becoming a thief the state would lose its legitimacy in the eyes of gunowners. A significant portion of the to-be-confiscated guns would “disappear”. On the eve of the Confiscation the police would file hundreds of thousands of reports on “stolen” and “lost” firearms.
To make it simple and short: There are so many privately owned firearms in Finland that private gun ownership cannot be banned in any meaningful manner. Gunowners can, of course, be succesfully harassed with different measures, but from the point of view of the ultimate goal, a gun-free society, they are meaningless.
The private guns, thus, cannot be confiscated. Let us then move on to the point b): why they should not be confiscated.
If there are a million bathtubs in the country, it is a mathematical inevitability that someone will drown in one. If there are 1600,000 privately owned guns and 700,000 gunowners in the country, it is a mathematical inevitability that sooner or later at least one firearm will find itself in the hands of a criminal or a lunatic. It is clear that by tightening our gun laws we can avoid a certain number of accidents or crimes. It is, indeed, one of the eternal arguments of the pro-control folk that if restriction X prevents even one loss of life, it is worth it. It is difficult to counter this argument because any resistance will provoke hysterical shouting and questions like: “Are you ready to say that to the family members of those who died at Jokela?”
Perhaps I am not. I may also not be ready to advertize the statistical safety of air travel to someone who just lost their family in a plane crash. But punishing 700,000 decent citizens by confiscating their property and ending an activity that is important to them, because of a small handful of bad apples, is not proportionate. Any number of crimes is too many, but even so the damage done to decent citizens must be proportionate to the profit achievable. It may be prudent to approach this thing with parallels that excite people less than firearms which, to many, represent a mythical evil.
According to statistics, males between 18 and 25 years of age are overrepresented in traffic accidents. The number of traffic accidents could be significantly reduced by banning all unnecessary driving from this group of people. Why are we not ready to do this? Because only a small fraction of all males between 18 and 25 are responsible for the ugly statistical truth. The punishment would be collective and unfair, despite the fact that any number of children killed in traffic accidents is too many.
Most physical assaults take place at night in city centers, and most perpetrators are males between 20 and 35. The number of assaults would decrease significantly if a night curfew were imposed on the said group of males. Why are we not ready to do this? Because we would be mostly punishing innocent people. The profit would not be in a just proportion to the harm inflicted, despite the fact that any number of assaults is too many.
What about alcohol? Nothing kills more Finns than alcohol does. It destroys more families than anything else. It kills and cripples indirectly more than anything else, because it is involved in nearly all violent crime. It burdens the public health services more than anything else does. Why do we not prohibit alcohol? So much at least can be said in defence of guns and gun sports that shooting is an instructive hobby which also keeps most of its devotees out of mischief. Is drinking an instructive hobby? Are the damages caused by alcohol a tolerable price for its more wholesome effects? Is not every alcohol-related death, crime or accident one too many? Why not? Are you ready to say that to a person randomly stabbed by a drunk, or to a child of an alcoholic?
There is no coherent answer to the question concerning alcohol. Most people simply content themselves with the truth that alcohol is part of our Finnish culture. But so is private gun ownership. It has a longer continuous history in our country than alcohol has.
By forbidding hunting from minors between 15 and 17 we can possibly prevent one suicide in every two years. But at the same time, we shall deprive thousands of young people in remote districts of a healthy and perhaps the only leisure-time activity. Will they be better off drinking beer in their friends’ garages or playing war games on the Internet? Raising the minimum age for obtaining a gun licence to 20 years, as some have suggested, could have prevented the Jokela tragedy but it would not have prevented the recent shooting in Heikinlaakso (a district in Helsinki) or any other shooting of the past. A higher minimum age would be justified if teenagers between 15 and 19 years were a statistical hazard. But they are not. Pekka-Eric Auvinen was an isolated, unique case.
Banning all guns from everyone might prevent a unique crime. It probably would have prevented the Jokela massacre. But on the whole it would not lessen violent crime because nearly all violent crimes in Finland are committed with weapons other than firearms. It would not even decrease the number of gun crimes significantly because the majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. By tightening gun laws we can only affect those who seek to abide the law.
In the wake of Jokela, we should not get stuck in a debate over guns. A SIG Sauer Mosquito or the Finnish gun law did not kill nine persons. Pekka-Eric Auvinen did. The gun did not make Auvinen kill. He acquired the gun in order to kill. There are, as I see, two reasons why we are talking about the instrument rather than the killer. The first one is that despite their apparent anti-American stance the Finnish (and European) Left adopt their doctrine, methods and agenda as such and predigested from the American Left. In the US, guns are a hot topic because lots of people over there are killed with guns, yet in America, too, the typical way to react is to harass the legal owners of legal guns, disregarding the fact that most gun crimes are committed with illegal and illegally owned ones. Cities and states that are characterized by gun laws significantly stricter than ours, such as Washington DC or Illinois, are black spots of gun crime, while many jurisdictions where gun ownership is not severely regulated, eg. Vermont and Alaska [and Virginia — BB], are among the safest. Gun crime in the US has to do with social and ethnic problems, not with gun laws or the availability of legal guns.
Since there is a gun problem in the US, the Finnish “progressives”, subservient to the American Left, have decided that we, too, must have a gun problem. In reality we have none. We have more guns per capita than any other European country but less gun crime than any other European country. The fact that there is a lot of violent crime in Finland is irrelevant because these crimes, as a rule, are not committed with guns.
The fact that we do not have a demonstrable gun problem disturbs our “progressives” in a terrible manner. For years they have been dying for something like Jokela to happen. So that they can yell triumphantly: “We told you, didn’t we!” This is their great moment. Like vultures they are feeding on the corpses of those who died at Jokela. As a gunowner I find that annoying. As a human being I find it repulsive.
Another reason for talking about guns, rather than the killer, is that guns and gunowners are an easy target to pour out your anger, hatred and frustration on. Similarly easy targets are computer games or heavy metal music. It is much more difficult and much less trendy to touch upon problems such as school bullying (according to the police investigations, Auvinen was bullied) because anti-gun people are also people who always view an evil-doer as a victim. It is much more difficult to talk about the catastrophic state of our public mental health care and school health services (according to the investigations Auvinen was suffering from mental problems). It is easy to take money from the mental patients because, on the one hand, they do not demand their rights and, on the other, the results of neglecting them show with a delay. A politician who only worries about the next elections is not interested in issues that have little immediate visible effects on anything, regardless of how severe the long-term impact on society will be.
In spite of what happened at Jokela, we do not have a gun problem. We do have other problems, but addressing them would require money and political will. Bringing knives or firearms into schools could be made more difficult by using guards or metal detectors, but such measures are a no-no to the self-proclaimed intellectuals because they would be “simplifying the problem” or something like that. The authorities that grant firearms licences should have an access to the mental record of the applicant, but this is a big no too because these intellectuals resent some, selected aspects of a police state. The licence authorities should be properly trained and instructed. Auvinen obtained his permit by virtue of having joined a Helsinki shooting club a few months before but without having visited the range even once. The law authorizes the police to consider whether the applicant has demonstrated his shooting hobby in a reliable manner. The Tuusula police made a clear mistake, the law itself is not to blame.
A lot of things could be done if there was political will. Even so, we cannot prevent all crimes. For decades the Finnish criminal politics have been based on the idea that the criminal is a victim and the crime is a reaction to influence from the social environment. We have lost our ability to understand that there are people who commit crimes, totally regardless of what the surrounding society does or does not do, because they are inherently stupid, crazy or evil. The world has seen all kinds of societies and legislations, but a crimeless society does not and will not exist. There will always be Auvinens who kill people out of their own will, their own motives, and using those instruments that are available. The society can only determine how, if at all, it wishes to punish them for their actions. It can also determine how, if at all, it allows the potential victims to defend themselves.
Read further... this is quite extensive the comments are well worth the read ..
Dennis Kucinich: at the DNC 11/30/2007 CSPAN
also visit, and I mean that, Dr. Michael Hudson is Dennis' primary economic adviser!! The link is right below.
That way you will know why Dennis knows what he is talking about.
DUMP PELOSI!!
IMPEACHMENT NOW, before there is a war and they can cover their tracks!! as WAR CRIMINALS!!
What a complete hell they have made ..
| Aug 15, 2007 Listen Now.. | From Cold War to Class War |
9/11 truth, careful dissection of FAKED videos
http://youtube.com/user/911NEWS
This won't embed, so go LOOK!
Brilliant! It will take you a little less than ten minutes to watch, but WOW!
WOW!
Was Osama mind controlled? Think about it.
Rare pre-Iraq war tape withheld from the public
Osama bin laden lashing out against the Baathists. My present for the people who still believe in the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection,says the youtube blurb for THIS video!!
Many new 9/11 videos being released UPDATE
Head on over to 9/11 bloglines.com. Have a look at everything posted there. It's incredible to watch the videos posted there and they are very up to date.
I've read and heard very very strange things since June about 9/11 and what REALLY happened. What I believe and do not believe is neither here nor there I guess, but I have been putting in many hours studying this since 2001. What I am learning lately is just mindblowing. It will be to you, too. Do I think drone planes were used? Do I think that the media collluded? Do I think energy weapons were used to vaporize everything? Do I think phoney videos were supplied to the investigations committee, willfully and purposefully supplied to them?
Gee I just don't KNOW. I do know that information is being deeply question even today. I do know you cannot believe your own eyes if you watch TV, that is for sure!! So I turned it off and it will remain off. I will get food channel things I want to watch on DVD.
IF we can prove government conclusion in the set up of these attacks with something to GAIN from them (or no government collusion but gain to be made by other outside parties) then lawsuits will have "legs" to stand on, as the real perpetrators of the attacks can be sought out and PROSECUTED for there crimes.
Below after this embedded video is an update of what happened in NYC, what was said to Dennis Kucinich, where YOU can go and read further information as we sort all this new stuff out.
To my mind, below is the MOST interesting video of all thos posted at 9/11 blogger but there is much more.
> On 11/29/07 wrote:
>>
>> http://www.bloglines.com/blog
>> November 29, 2007
>> NYC: Nico Haupt delivered 9/11 TV Fakery Evidence to Dennis Kucinich
>> By ewing2001
>>
>> picked up at:
>> http://www.youtube.com/ScottGol
>> (available within the next 48 hours)
>>
>> On Thursday, Nico Haupt (911bloglines.com, 9/11 Stalker TV etc...) had
>> an opportunity to confront Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich on
>> his public support of the "re-investigate 9/11" campaign at Alex
>> Grey's Gallery in NYC (540 W. 27th St., fl. 4)
>>
>> The Gallery was packed with apprx. 3-400 people, as part of a birthday
>> party of artist and 'spiritualist'Alex Grey.
>>
>> When the Q +A started, Haupt was able to ask one of the first
>> questions and focussed on a demand of "courage" of Kucinich not only
>> to focus on a hangout element of a 'new 9/11 Investigation', but to
>> take any kind of opportunity to "expand the debate on the evidence of
>> 9/11 TV Fakery' and the existance of Directed Energy Weapons as part
>> of the SDI Application "Future Combat System" and strongest 'suspect'
>> as to how the Twin Towers came down on 9/11.
>>
>> Kucinich picked up both points, but intensified his answer on a
>> potential pending space war between U.S., Russia and China/SCO and the
>> Surveillance 'NIC 2020 Project'.
>>
>> Haupt was also able to promote a few of the most successful
>> documentary mash-ups on the matter of 9/11 TV Fakery and pointed out
>> to the public to "watch 'September Clues', '2001- a Fake Odyssey',
>> '9/11 Taboo' and '911Octopus'" and delivered a leaflet to Kucinich
>> with several links, plus others to the audience after the event.
>> Kucinich didn't discredit the effort, spent some time on his answer
>> and responded in the typical manner of political diplomacy to check
>> out the material.
>>
>> The event was filmed by Scott Goldberg, who once also collaborated
>> with wearechange nyc.
>> Other members of the audience also asked Kucinich about his 'support'
>> of 911truth.org; Public Access Host Paula Gloria asked another
>> question about Directed Energy (Weapons).
>>
>> WeareChange wasn't at the event, which was underpromoted, but some
>> members of ny911truth.org plus other prominent NYC Street- and Media
>> Activists.
>> According to Filmmaker Goldberg, he promised to provide the complete
>> footage within the next few days on his youtube site at
>> http://youtube.com/scottgoldber
>> Posted on: Thu, Nov 29 2007
In Canada, the Court discovers a SPINE -UPDATED 16 December 2007
Surprise decision saying U.S. not a safe country for asylum seekers opens door to northbound claims
November 30, 2007
Nicholas KeungToronto Star
IMMIGRATION/DIVERSITY REPORTER
Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the American border under a federal court ruling that deems the United States not a safe country for refugees – opening the door for a potential flood of northbound claimants.
In a surprise judgment yesterday, the court concluded that the three-year-old Safe Third Country Agreement – which denies refugees who have landed first in the U.S. the right to later seek protection in Canada, and vice versa – breaches the rights of asylum seekers under the United Nation Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture.
"The interest at stake is highly important to an individual's life, safety and dignity,"wrote Justice Michael Phelan.
"I would therefore conclude that the designation of the U.S. as a safe third country leads to a discriminatory result, in that it has a much more severe impact on persons who fall into the areas where the U.S. is not compliant with the Refugee Convention or CAT (Convention Against Torture), as well as discriminating and exposing such people to risk based solely on the method of arrival in Canada."
Refugees arriving in Canada by air, rather than by land, have continued to have the right to remain in Canada while awaiting a ruling on their claim.
The reasoning issued yesterday, which will essentially nullify the agreement with a final court order expected early next year, is a huge victory for refugee advocates, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International and John Doe, a failed Colombian refugee claimant in the U.S., who brought the declaration application to the court.
Activists have long complained that the agreement, which requires refugee claims in Canada and the U.S. to be processed in the country where asylum seekers first land, is unfair and unconstitutional.
"We are somewhat surprised but very pleased with the decision, which is basically everything that we've been looking for,"said lawyer Andrew Brouwer, who, along with Barbara Jackman, Leigh Salsberg and Lorne Waldman, represented the applicants.
"This is a vindication of the rights of refugees that we haven't seen around the world in a while."
In 2005, the applicants filed a judicial review challenging the agreement, which came into force on Dec. 24, 2004, as part of the Smart Border Declaration to ensure tightened border security and more efficient processing of refugee claims in both countries.
Using John Doe as an example, the applicants sought a court declaration that the designation of the U.S. as a "safe third country" for asylum seekers under the agreement is "invalid and unlawful."
They also argued that the U.S. does not comply with certain international conventions protecting refugees and prohibiting returning people to places of torture.
In his decision, Phelan said the issues over the American authorities' use of expedited removals and use of detention, combined with concerns over the U.S.'s rigid application of the one-year bar to refugee claims, the provisions governing security issues and terrorism based on a lower standard, called into question whether the U.S. is safe for asylum seekers.
Despite a section in the regulation that requires the government to conduct required reviews of the agreement and the conditions for refugee claimants in the U.S., the judge wrote the minister has not established a review process.
Both the applicants and Ottawa have until Jan. 14 to file their submissions for a final court order, which would most likely strike down the agreement based solely on yesterday's reasoning.
A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Diane Finley said the Safe Third Country Agreement remains in effect and the government is currently reviewing its options.
However, there's no right to appeal in the proceeding, said Brouwer.
With files from Richard Brennan
CANADA OVERTURNS SAFE THIRD COUNTRY AGREEMENT WITH U.S.
[By Edward C. Corrigan, BA, MA, LLB - Special to the CIC Friday Magazine]
==============================
In a surprise ruling handed down on November 29, the Federal Court of
Canada overturned the "Canada United States Safe Third Country Agreement"
(Canadian Council of Refugees et al v. Her Majesty the Queen IMM 7818-05).
In a 124-page decision Mr. Justice Michael Phelan ruled that the Safe Third
Country Agreement which came into effect on Dec. 29, 2004 and regulated
refugee movement between Canada and the USA violates refugee rights and
that the United States did not meet the conditions required to be
considered a "Safe Country" under the terms of the Agreement.
The Agreement was also held to be contrary to the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. "The interest at stake is highly important to an
individual's life, safety and dignity," wrote Justice Phelan.
The Judge stated, "I would therefore conclude that the designation of the
U.S. as a safe third country leads to a discriminatory result, in that it
has a much more severe impact on persons who fall into the areas where the
U.S. is not compliant with the Refugee Convention or CAT (Convention
Against Torture), as well as discriminating and exposing such people to
risk based solely on the method of arrival in Canada."
"For the reasons outlined in this judgment, the United States' policies and
practices do not meet the conditions set down for authorizing Canada to
enter into a Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)... The U.S. does not meet
the Refugee Convention requirements nor the Convention Against Torture
prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example.) Further, the STCA does
not comply with the relevant provisions of the Charter," Justice Phelan
continued.
The court ruled that a one-year deadline to file refugee claims in the U.S.
was inconsistent with international conventions because it increased the
risk that claimants would be sent back to countries where they faced danger
or torture. Justice Phelan also noted that the U.S. definition of terrorist
activities can include those who never had any intention of contributing to
terrorism.
"It is difficult to imagine how the governor in council could have
reasonably concluded that the U.S. complies with the Refugee Convention
when the law allows the exclusion of claimants who involuntarily provided
support to terrorist groups. The terrorist exclusions are extremely harsh
and cast a wide net which will catch many who never posed a threat. In
returning claimants to the U.S. under these circumstances, the weight of
the evidence is that Canada is exposing refugees to a serious risk of
‘refoulement’ (return to danger) and torture which is contrary to the
applicable articles of the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against
Torture."
In his ruling Justice Phelan also expressed concerns over the American
authorities' use of expedited removals and use of detention, combined with
concerns over the U.S.'s rigid application of the one-year bar to refugee
claims, and the provisions governing security issues and terrorism based on
a lower standard, all of which called into question whether the U.S. is
safe for asylum seekers and met the requirements of the Safe Third Country
Agreement.
The Canadian Government also ignored a section in the regulations that
required the government to conduct reviews of the Agreement and to assess
the conditions for refugee claimants in the United States. Justice Phelan
noted that the minister has not established a review process as required
under the law.
This ruling of the Federal Court will not immediately change the
restrictions on the right of entry of refugee claimants coming to Canada
from the United States. The Agreement will continue to apply until the
issue is finally decided by the Federal Court. The parties have until
January 14, 2008 to make final arguments.
The ruling came about after the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian
Council of Churches, Amnesty International and John Doe (a failed refugee
claimant from Colombia), went to the Federal Court for a ruling on the
legality of the Agreement. They argued that the Agreement violated the
rights of refugees claimants and that the United States did not comply with
the legal requirements to protect refugees and thus to qualify as a "safe
third country."
The Safe Third Country Agreement closed the border to the majority of
refugee claimants who came through the U.S. and who wanted to make a claim
for protection in Canada. The agreement required that all refugee claimants
who do not meet the limited exclusion provisions set out in the Agreement
(primarily that they have a close family relative in Canada or were
stateless) were denied the right to make a refugee claim in Canada. These
refugees were required to make a claim for asylum in the U.S. Similarly,
most refugees who entered Canada were required to make a claim in Canada
and not in the United States.
The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches,
Amnesty International and John Doe in launching this court challenge,
"argued that this approach would be acceptable if the U.S. asylum system
met recognized international standards for the protection of human rights,
including refugee rights, but it did not."
Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, said,
"In Canada, in the United States and around the world, refugees and refugee
claimants are among the most vulnerable members of any society and
regularly experience harsh treatment and systematic disregard for their
most basic human rights." He added, "This decision is an eloquent
reaffirmation of how important it is that governments scrupulously ensure
the safety of refugees and uphold the full range of their human rights.
This is a message that will and must be heard around the world."
The three organizations that initiated the court challenge called on the
Canadian and U.S. governments to immediately suspend the operation of the
safe third country agreement.
A spokesperson for Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Minister Diane Finley said the Safe Third Country Agreement is still in effect and the government was reviewing its options.
(Edward C. Corrigan is a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Citizenship
and Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law
Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at
corriganlaw@corrigan.ca
439-4015. This article was edited and slightly abridged for the CIC Friday
Magazine.)
when "healthcare" becomes state terror
Maryland Health Officials Who Coerce Vaccinations Qualify as "Terrorists" Under New Senate Legislation
As we reported yesterday, the U.S. Senate is about to vote on a bill that would criminalize the "planned use of force" to promote a political, religious or social belief. While we strongly disagree with the passage of the law, one curious effect is that it would clearly qualify Maryland's Attorney General Glenn Ivey -- the man who has threatened Maryland parents with imprisonment if they don't get their children vaccinated -- as a terrorist.
With the help of two state judges and the head of the local school board, Glenn Ivey conspired to terrorize parents with threats of having them taken from their homes at gunpoint (being arrested) and forcibly separated from their families by throwing them in jail for up to 30 days if they refused to have their children vaccinated with drugs that contain the toxic heavy metal mercury. There is absolutely no question that under the new legislation that's about to pass the Senate, called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Glenn Ivey's actions would qualify as acts of terrorism. (See our previous report on this topic at http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html ) Even more interestingly, Glenn Ivey merely thinking about threatening parents who don't get their children vaccinated would, all by itself, be considered a terrorist "thoughtcrime" act.
Glenn Ivey, of course, will never be prosecuted as a terrorist under this law. But if you or I picked up a gun, shoved it in the faces of parents, and threatened to kidnap them if they didn't inject their children with toxic mercury, there's no doubt that we'd be arrested and charged with numerous crimes. So why does the state of Maryland get away with making essentially the same threat?
Because in a fascist police state, the laws are never applied to the criminals running the State. Laws are selectively applied only to the citizenry, not the officials, bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel who are protecting the power structure. This is, in fact, a key sign of an unjust society: The King's laws never apply to the King! (Only to the peasants...)
With the help of two state judges and the head of the local school board, Glenn Ivey conspired to terrorize parents with threats of having them taken from their homes at gunpoint (being arrested) and forcibly separated from their families by throwing them in jail for up to 30 days if they refused to have their children vaccinated with drugs that contain the toxic heavy metal mercury. There is absolutely no question that under the new legislation that's about to pass the Senate, called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Glenn Ivey's actions would qualify as acts of terrorism. (See our previous report on this topic at http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html ) Even more interestingly, Glenn Ivey merely thinking about threatening parents who don't get their children vaccinated would, all by itself, be considered a terrorist "thoughtcrime" act.
Glenn Ivey, of course, will never be prosecuted as a terrorist under this law. But if you or I picked up a gun, shoved it in the faces of parents, and threatened to kidnap them if they didn't inject their children with toxic mercury, there's no doubt that we'd be arrested and charged with numerous crimes. So why does the state of Maryland get away with making essentially the same threat?
Because in a fascist police state, the laws are never applied to the criminals running the State. Laws are selectively applied only to the citizenry, not the officials, bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel who are protecting the power structure. This is, in fact, a key sign of an unjust society: The King's laws never apply to the King! (Only to the peasants...)
Ignoring the rule of law
Essentially, it means there are two tiers of law. At the bottom, there are all the laws that apply to the people, which include this anti-terrorism legislation. But at the top, none of those laws apply to the people running the State. Maryland's Attorney General will never be charged as a terrorist, even if his actions clearly qualify him as one under U.S. law. President Bush will unfortunately never be charged as a murderer, even though his war actions clearly qualify him as a mass murderer (if you kill just one person, it's called murder, but if you kill a hundred thousand, it's called war).
How about the international laws against the use of weapons of mass destruction? Once again, the United States is openly engaged in the use of such weapons -- depleted uranium shells being used right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Note that there is absolutely no international trial, no charges, and no outcry from any western nation over the use of this WMD that will irradiate the Iraqi landscape for generations to come.
Is depleted uranium really a WMD? Of course it is. Here's a brief explanation from Wikipedia:
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission,[16] passed two motions[17] the first in 1996[18] and the second in 1997.[19] They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. Continue reading at Wikipedia...
How about the international laws against the use of weapons of mass destruction? Once again, the United States is openly engaged in the use of such weapons -- depleted uranium shells being used right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Note that there is absolutely no international trial, no charges, and no outcry from any western nation over the use of this WMD that will irradiate the Iraqi landscape for generations to come.
Is depleted uranium really a WMD? Of course it is. Here's a brief explanation from Wikipedia:
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission,[16] passed two motions[17] the first in 1996[18] and the second in 1997.[19] They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. Continue reading at Wikipedia...
How laws are applied in a police state
Police state societies do not respect the rule of law. They simply invent laws as they go along, then selectively apply them to whoever they want. For example, here in the United States, it is illegal for the President to declare an act of war. Only Congress can declare an act of war, yet Congress never declared war against Iran or Afghanistan. Bush sort of declared war, but only against a concept -- terrorism -- and not an enemy state.
If this Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act passes and gets signed into law, there are all sorts of government actions against the People that should technically be considered acts of terrorism. For example, armed FDA raids on vitamin companies would clearly qualify as acts of terrorism. Will FDA officials be arrested, charged with terrorist crimes, and shipped off to Guantanamo? Only in your wildest dreams...
How about the use of force by the DEA to destroy industrial hemp farms in the United States? This lucrative crop is grown legally in Canada and used to make hemp clothes, hemp rope, hemp seeds (which are rich in omega-3 oils) and all sorts of goods that we import from Canada, but here in the U.S., the growing of this industrial crop is condemned, disrupted and aggressively attacked by a government group that, at times, acts like a group of terrorists: The Drug Enforcement Agency.
What are they doing that qualifies them as terrorists? Raiding farms at gunpoint, burning their hemp fields, spraying poisons on their crops via helicopter, imprisoning the farmers, and much worse. It's clearly a terrorist operation designed to achieve a political goal (the destruction of the hemp industry in order to protect the powerful cotton interests in this country). There is absolutely no logical rationale behind the suppression of the hemp industry. It is purely a political ploy.
All this doesn't mean the DEA isn't useful in stopping the manufacture and distribution of truly dangerous drugs like meth or crack, but spending billions of taxpayer dollars going after a harmless industrial crop like hemp -- a crop that could enrich U.S. farmers, produce endless renewable biofuel energy and create a booming textile industry -- is ludicrous.
If this Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act passes and gets signed into law, there are all sorts of government actions against the People that should technically be considered acts of terrorism. For example, armed FDA raids on vitamin companies would clearly qualify as acts of terrorism. Will FDA officials be arrested, charged with terrorist crimes, and shipped off to Guantanamo? Only in your wildest dreams...
How about the use of force by the DEA to destroy industrial hemp farms in the United States? This lucrative crop is grown legally in Canada and used to make hemp clothes, hemp rope, hemp seeds (which are rich in omega-3 oils) and all sorts of goods that we import from Canada, but here in the U.S., the growing of this industrial crop is condemned, disrupted and aggressively attacked by a government group that, at times, acts like a group of terrorists: The Drug Enforcement Agency.
What are they doing that qualifies them as terrorists? Raiding farms at gunpoint, burning their hemp fields, spraying poisons on their crops via helicopter, imprisoning the farmers, and much worse. It's clearly a terrorist operation designed to achieve a political goal (the destruction of the hemp industry in order to protect the powerful cotton interests in this country). There is absolutely no logical rationale behind the suppression of the hemp industry. It is purely a political ploy.
All this doesn't mean the DEA isn't useful in stopping the manufacture and distribution of truly dangerous drugs like meth or crack, but spending billions of taxpayer dollars going after a harmless industrial crop like hemp -- a crop that could enrich U.S. farmers, produce endless renewable biofuel energy and create a booming textile industry -- is ludicrous.
We can do this the easy way or the hard way...
What's clear about all this in the United States today is that the U.S. government believes it has the right to use terrorist tactics on the People in order to achieve its political goals. The gunpoint medicine policy of forced vaccinations in Maryland is a recent outgrowth of this dangerous belief. It is the kind of belief that lets you know right away just how quickly this country is headed towards police state fascism. Apparently, pointing guns in the faces of the People (or threatening to do so) is increasingly one of the ways in which Government gets its way. In fact, Maryland's Attorney General used these exact words when describing his gunpoint medicine policy of forced vaccinations: "We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way..."
What he means by that, of course, is if you don't agree with his political and medical aims, you will have a gun shoved in your face and be threatened with violence until you comply. This is a classic motivation tactic of a police state society. I'm curious to know whether Glenn Ivey will support this new legislation in the U.S. Senate that would clearly classify his own actions as acts of terrorism...
It will be fascinating to see how all this plays out. Will the People rise up and demand their freedoms, wrestling the future of America back from tyrants? Or will they elect a new tyrant in 2008 and accelerate the nation's march towards self destruction? Given that at least half the population is now drugged up on pharmaceuticals, brainwashed by cable news and hoodwinked over what really happened on 9/11, it's hard to imagine people waking up in time to change the course of this country. But stranger things have happened. It's possible that this nation might survive its current freedom crisis, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. And if I did bet on it, I wouldn't place my bet in fast-falling U.S. dollars, for sure.
Interested in saving America's future from tyrants? Join the American Freedom Campaign, founded by Naomi Wolf:
http://www.AmericanFreedomCampaign.org
About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He's also the founder and CEO of a well known email mail merge software developer whose software, 'Email Marketing Director,' currently runs the NewsTarget email subscriptions. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening. He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds.
What he means by that, of course, is if you don't agree with his political and medical aims, you will have a gun shoved in your face and be threatened with violence until you comply. This is a classic motivation tactic of a police state society. I'm curious to know whether Glenn Ivey will support this new legislation in the U.S. Senate that would clearly classify his own actions as acts of terrorism...
It will be fascinating to see how all this plays out. Will the People rise up and demand their freedoms, wrestling the future of America back from tyrants? Or will they elect a new tyrant in 2008 and accelerate the nation's march towards self destruction? Given that at least half the population is now drugged up on pharmaceuticals, brainwashed by cable news and hoodwinked over what really happened on 9/11, it's hard to imagine people waking up in time to change the course of this country. But stranger things have happened. It's possible that this nation might survive its current freedom crisis, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. And if I did bet on it, I wouldn't place my bet in fast-falling U.S. dollars, for sure.
Interested in saving America's future from tyrants? Join the American Freedom Campaign, founded by Naomi Wolf:
http://www.AmericanFreedomCampaign.org
# # #
About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He's also the founder and CEO of a well known email mail merge software developer whose software, 'Email Marketing Director,' currently runs the NewsTarget email subscriptions. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening. He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
