The impeachment of war criminal Barack Obama has begun but the globalist controlled traitor media is blacking this huge news out.
Appearing on video on Monday morning, al-Zawahri said his organization has made some changes since the assassination of its former head, Osama Bin Laden, in May of last year. “We in Al-Qaeda learned our lesson. We now know not to mess with America. We want to be friends because of our common interests and goals. We have decided to work with the Obama administration in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and throughout the Middle East.”
In Washington, Al-Qaeda’s stunning change in its policy towards America has received support among the most hawkish elements. “Al-Qaeda is obviously not the perfect ally. But we desperately need troops to change the regime in Syria, and if Al-Qaeda fighters want to assist us in this international effort, whether directly or indirectly, I’m all for it,” said a Pentagon official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile, in Syria the Free Syrian Army is anticipating a rise in its recruitment levels because of Al-Qaeda’s call to Jihadists across the region to join the democratic revolution in Syria.
Many anti-Assad rebels are wearing Bin Laden t-shirts reminiscent of the famous Che t-shirt as a sign that they will carry on their martyr’s heroic cause. In cities captured by the Free Syrian Army the image of Bin Laden graces the walls of many government buildings.
At the United Nations, news of Al-Qaeda’s entry to Syria has been greeted with enthusiasm. International human rights groups have intensified their criticism of the Assad regime in recent weeks and call on President Assad to give up power.
American, French, Israeli, and British special forces are expected to join the Free Syrian Army’s quest for freedom and dignity next month. It is very possible that Al-Qaeda fighters will fight alongside American veterans from the successful freedom operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Whether or not they will recognize each other from their previous interactions is an impolite question that should be suppressed in order to advance the greater cause of revolution in a badly governed country run by a despotic and demonic dictator.
Posted by Saman Mohammadi at 8:47 PM
February 9, 2012
The mysterious hacktivist group Anonymous has captured the following clip from a Department of Homeland Security video feed. It shows King Dung Beetle Napolitano and her minions during a DHS feeding frenzy, eating their favorite dish.
Of course, the above is obviously satire, but you get the point.
January 15, 2012
Investigative journalists in Chile have uncovered a number of previously unreported political executions under General Pinochet’s reign of terror, including the execution of the Nobel Prize-winning poet Pablo Neruda.
More than 3,000 Chileans were “disappeared” after the CIA-plotted coup in Chile.
Investigative journalists at ArchivosChile patched together files from the Legal Medical Service, the General Cemetery, the Civil Registry and the Military Prosecutors. They discovered 890 politically motivated deaths between Sept. 11 and the end of December 1973, according to the Santiago Times.
Chile’s bloody coup was planned and orchestrated by the CIA after the Chilean people made the mistake of democratically electing a socialist, Salvador Allende. It was later revealed that then president Nixon had ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream” in Chile to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”
Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, played an instrumental role in the coup. He chaired the 40 Committee, a high-level enter agency group, that ordered the CIA to destabilize the country and plot a military coup installing a military dictatorship that lasted 17 years.
“The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves,” he said at the time. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.”
Following he coup and the murder of Allende, Pinochet and his military created DINA, the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional. DINA served as the primary secret police organization for political repression in Chile under the military dictatorship.
DINA not only tortured political opponents, but also assassinated them. In 1976, working with the CIA, the French OAS and the Italian fascist terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie, DINA assassinated former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier and American political activist Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC.
Pinochet’s regime also initiated Operation Condor, a program for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in much of Latin America. Operation Condor was given tacit approval by the United States and resulted in the murder of thousands of activists, including an estimated 30,000 socialists, trade-unionists, and relatives of activists in Argentina.
The United States now has its own version of Operation Condor under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on December 31, 2011 by Obama. In addition to issuing a carte blanche to indefinitely detain citizens – in Chile, they are called the desaparecidos, the disappeared – the legislation reinstates “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture. It compliments an earlier decision that Americans are legitimate military targets and may be assassinated – as cleric Anwar al-Awlaki allegedly was – on orders of an executive branch that has since the Bush years increasingly resembled an imperial presidency.
“The Bush regime operated as if the Constitution did not exist. Any semblance of constitutional government that remained after the Bush years was terminated when Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act,” writes Paul Craig Roberts today.
We now live in a military dictatorship little different than the one that ruled Chile. As of yet, the military is not “disappearing” Americans in large numbers and herding them into sports stadiums little different than the National Stadium in Santiago where 40,000 political prisoners were detained under Pinochet’s CIA-enabled reign of terror.
Political prisoners held at a sports stadium in Chile.
How long before the military in America sets up its own Caravan of Death – a notorious roving death squad in Chile – or establishes counterparts to Colonia Dignidad, the ship Esmeralda or numerous other torture and execution centers in Chile?
We are one false flag terror attack away from a full-blown Chile-style police state. The establishment media assures us the next attack will not come from al-Qaeda cave dwellers, but rather domestic “extremists” and “lone wolf” terrorists.
The Department of Homeland Security and the globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations assure us that the coming terror will resemble Oklahoma City in 1995 – in other words it will be perpetuated by “rightwing extremists,” defined by the DHS, MIAC and “fusion centers” around the country as returning veterans, Second Amendment activists, constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.
Following that event, the police state apparatus the state has meticulously crafted over the last twenty years will be put into full motion and it will make anything Pinochet and his military did to the people of Chile pale in comparison.
“What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon.” – Napoleon Bonaparte 
The following is from : Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series)
Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and his personal friend and attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty in the wrongful death of Martin Luther King. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators,  is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King.
The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were denied, as suspect James Ray’s recant of what he claimed was a false confession was denied. Mr. Ray said that his government-appointed attorney told him to sign a confession in order to receive a trial. When Mr. Ray discovered that his signature meant no trial, his and the King family’s subsequent requests were denied.
The US government also denied the King family’s requests for independent investigation of the assassination.
Therefore, and importantly, the US government has never presented any evidence subject to challenge that substantiates their claim that Mr. Ray assassinated Dr. King.
US corporate media did not cover the trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. Journalist and author, James Douglass: 
“I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?” ”
For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials: 
“Media coverage of the Simpson trial, which began in January 1995, was unlike any other. Over two thousand reporters covered the trial, and 80 miles of cable was required to allow nineteen television stations to cover the trial live to 91 percent of the American viewing audience. When the verdict was finally read on October 3, 1995, some 142 million people listened or watched. It seemed the nation stood still, divided along racial lines as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, over eighty books were published about the event by most everyone involved in the Simpson case.”
The overwhelming evidence of government complicity introduced and agreed as comprehensively valid by the jury includes the 111th Military Intelligence Group were sent to Dr. King’s location, and that the usual police protection was pulled away just before the assassination. Military Intelligence set-up photographers on a roof of a fire station with a clear view to Dr. King’s balcony. 20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day. Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper team. Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
The King family believes the government’s motivation to murder Dr. King was to prevent his imminent camp-in at Washington, D.C. until the Vietnam War was ended and those resources directed to end poverty and invest in US hard and soft infrastructure.
Please watch this six-minute video of the evidence from the trial,  and this eight-minute video  on the FBI’s disclosures of covert operations against Dr. King, including confirmation from his closest friends and advisors.
Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s wife, is certain of the evidence after 30 years of consideration from the 1968 assassination to the 1999 trial:
“For a quarter of a century, Bill Pepper conducted an independent investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He opened his files to our family, encouraged us to speak with the witnesses, and represented our family in the civil trial against the conspirators. The jury affirmed his findings, providing our family with a long-sought sense of closure and peace, which had been denied by official disinformation and cover- ups. Now the findings of his exhaustive investigation and additional revelations from the trial are presented in the pages of this important book. We recommend it highly to everyone who seeks the truth about Dr. King’s assassination.” — Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s wife.
The US Department of Justice issued a report in 2000 that explains their investigation into their own possible guilt in the assassination found no evidence to warrant further investigation. Dr. King’s son issued the following statement  rebuking a “self-study” rather than the independent investigation the King family assert the evidence demands:
“We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their “limited investigation,” which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:
1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.
2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)
3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only one (1) hour to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.
4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.
5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.
Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation.”
Let’s summarize: Under US Civil Law, covert US government agencies were found guilty of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leading figure of the Civil Rights Movement, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and widely recognized as one of the world’s greatest speakers for what it means to be human. The family’s conclusion as to motive was to prevent Dr. King from ending the Vietnam War because the government wanted to continue its ongoing covert and overt military operations to control foreign governments and their resources.
It is therefore a factual statement that under US Civil Law, the US government assassinated Dr. King.
This is similar that under Criminal Law, both O.J. Simpson and the US government are not legally guilty for murder, but both parties are guilty for killing innocent victims under Civil Law.
People of sufficient intellectual integrity and moral courage will embrace the trial evidence and testimony, jury conclusion, and King family analysis as appropriate and helpful information in seeking the facts.
People who at least temporarily reject challenging information out of fear might say something like, “The government killed Dr. King? That’s a crazy conspiracy theory!”
Let’s consider that statement.
When someone says that a body of evidence is “crazy,” or a “conspiracy theory” (meaning an irrational claim easily refuted by the evidence) that’s a claim. With a claim comes a burden of proof. In this case, the person would have to demonstrate command of the facts to explain and prove why the evidence from the civil trial is somehow “crazy” and easily refuted.
If the person can do this, it would be tremendously helpful in understanding the facts. However, we know from our experience that such statements almost always have zero factual support, and that the person making such a claim literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
We also know from our experience, a person making such a statement is really voicing an emotional reaction something closer to the spirit of, “The government killed Dr. King? Ok, I read and understood the paragraphs about the trial and evidence. I read Mrs. King’s and her son’s statement. I haven’t invested the time to verify how valid that information is. I’m not stupid, but because the implications of what that means is so disturbing, I’m going to deny anything about it could possibly be true as my first response. If I’m going to continue being in denial and refuse to discuss the evidence, I’ll attack the messenger.”
We also need to consider the lack of coverage by US corporate media of this compelling evidence, trial verdict, and King family testimony from over 30 years’ analysis of the facts. Recall the evidence of US corporate media reporting being infiltrated by CIA agents to propagandize Americans’ access to information. This included the Director of the CIA’s admission to Congress that they have over 400 agents working in corporate media to make the US public believe what the CIA wants them to believe.
In 2006, George Washington University used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the US military’s “Information Operations Roadmap.” This formerly secret and approved document details present US government strategies to generate propaganda, and then attack Internet alternative media that provides dangerous facts and discussion. The military promoted the term, “Fight the net.” 
Although I won’t enter the burden of proof here, you may know that there are similar and related bodies of evidence that the US government assassinated other American leaders who opposed key policies of an apparent violent faction within US government. The 1975 Senate Church Committee disclosed that the US government initiated and helped assassination attempts on multiple foreign heads of state. 
If we were discussing how the population of some other nation could employ critical thinking skills to understand current events from anytime in history, we would certainly understand the importance to anticipate disinformation from government, danger of controlled media, and assassination as a political weapon.
Failure to do so would appropriately elicit the label attributed to the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin. Such people who believe what their government tells them when the history and present have overwhelming objective evidence to explain, document, and prove that the government is typical of so many other historical self-serving oligarchies are:
To the extent the United States today is any different from all other nations and all other times is up to your exercise of critical thinking skills.
69 Conversation with Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases (20 November 1816), Mémorial de Sainte Hélène, v. 4, p. 251.
70 The Martin Luther King Jr. Center. Civil Case: King Family versus Jowers. Transcript of closing statement: http://www.thekingcenter.org/civil-case-king-family-versus-jowers/ .
71 Probe Magazine. The Martin Luther King Conspiracy exposed in Memphis. Douglass, J.: http://ctka.net/pr500-king.html . Mr. Douglass took what he learned from the MLK trial and wrote a book on the explanation and evidence that similar covert US government factions assassinated President Kennedy: JFK and the unspeakable: why he died and why it matters. Reviews for your consideration here and here. Because the evidence for JFK being murdered by interests in our own government is so strong, AP US History teacher John Hankey created this DVD: Dark Legacy.
72 One of many analyses: law.jrank. Media – The O.j. Simpson Case: http://law.jrank.org/pages/12147/Media-O-J-Simpson-Case.html
73 Documentation from the King family, trial information, and video resources: Examiner.com. Martin Luther King assassinated by US government: MLK civil trial decision. Herman, C. Jan. 15, 2011: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/mlk-assassinated-by-us-government-martin-luther-king-civil-1999-decision . For further documentation of evidence: What Really Happened: The Death of Martin Luther King: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MLK/mlk.html
74 RevolutionNewz. MSM blackout – the US govt executed Martin Luther King…Proven in US court, 1999: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k383kA7p7vs
75 Global Research. Martin Luther King Day: King family statement on the Justice Department’s “Limited Investigation” of the MLK assassination. Jan. 15, 2007
76 George Washington University. The National Security Archive. Rumsfeld’s Roadmap to Propaganda. Jan. 26, 2006: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/ . BBC News analysis: US plans to ‘fight the net’ revealed. Brookes, A. Jan. 27, 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
77 History matters. Church Committee Interim report: Alleged assassination plots involving foreign leaders: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/church/contents_church_reports_ir.htm
Published: 07 January, 2012, 01:56
US Dept. of Homeland Security.
Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.
Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.
Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.
Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.
The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.
The development out of the DHS comes at the same time that U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady denied pleas from supporters of WikiLeaks who had tried to prevent account information pertaining to their Twitter accounts from being provided to federal prosecutors. Jacob Applebaum and others advocates of Julian Assange’s whistleblower site were fighting to keep the government from subpoenaing information on their personal accounts that were collected from Twitter.
Last month the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk Massachusetts District Attorney subpoenaed Twitter over details pertaining to recent tweets involving the Occupy Boston protests.
The website Fast Company reports that the intel collected by the Department of Homeland Security under the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been happening since as early as 2010 and the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.
Federal courts function with integrity, according to a self-serving annual report on the judiciary that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued over the weekend.
His annual report issued on Dec. 31 in the middle of the New Year’s holiday weekend focused heavily on the need for public confidence. But he recommended nothing more for reform than current procedures, despite increasing calls for recusal or even impeachment because of conflict issues.
Noting at the outset baseball’s disgrace from player bribery in the 1919 “Black Sox” scandal, Roberts said he had “complete confidence” in the integrity of judges, including his Supreme Court colleagues.
That’s not good enough from the chief justice, who presides over both the nine-member high court and the Judicial Conference of the United States, which supervises the federal court system nationally.
It’s doubtless true that the vast majority of judges work honorably. But there’s lots of evidence of judges who have been enriched or otherwise co-opted by benefactors and political allies while protected by cronies and toadies. Here is a sample commentary Jan. 3 in Alabama, for example. It referenced the chief justice’s report in terms far different than the report’s coverage from Supreme Court beat reporters in the mainstream media, who necessarily must maintain access to judges and prosecutors.
So far, for example, 52 House Democrats have requested a House Judiciary Committee impeachment investigation of Republican Justice Clarence Thomas for false statements on his annual financial disclosure statements covering up a reported $1.6 million in payments and gifts, mostly to his wife, Virginia.
This is one basis for an effort by some Democrats to prevent Thomas from sitting on the Court’s upcoming review of the Obama-supported health care law. Democrats focus especially on his 2010 vote in a 5-4 ruling enabling corporation donations in federal elections that was won by the same Citizens United group that advocated for his confirmation in 1991 with massive television ads. The Citizens United ruling was central to planning by Virginia Thomas to lead a new non-profit called Liberty Central funded by conservatives to help corporations make political donations enabled by her husband’s vote with the court majority and to position herself as a key opponent of Obama’s health care law that her husband could help overturn.
In response, Republicans seek to target Elena Kagan, a Democrat, from reviewing the law’s constitutionality because of her work as solicitor general for the Obama Justice Department.
Foreseeing some of these problems, the non-partisan Justice Integrity Project I lead opposed her confirmation on civil rights grounds. We feared she was too closely aligned with the president on executive power issues. One such controversial Obama action that’s in the news since the weekend is the defense appropriation law he signed Dec. 31. It enables, among other things, military detention indefinitely without trial of U.S. citizens suspected of supporting terror.
Recusal issues are clearly on the court’s radar, as indicated by a landmark 5-4 ruling in 2009 that a West Virginia state Supreme Court justice who had received millions from a mine owner must recuse from a high-profile case involving the donor.
I wrote about a similar situation that year involving the notorious federal prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, his state’s leading Democrat. His federal trial judge made many controversial pro-prosecution rulings while controlling a company that received some $300 million in federal contracts from the Bush administration. Whistle-blowers, including one swearing she was in on Republican planning to frame Siegelman, have alleged that the Bush Justice Department orchestrated the still-ongoing prosecution to remove Siegelman from politics, in part to help facilitate massive federal contracts and legalized gambling revenues for well-connected Republicans.
Just last week, new allegations arose in in Wisconsin regarding a Supreme court justice who received cut-rate legal services from an attorney frequently litigating before the justice.
Roberts cited no specifics in his report, whose release at 6 p.m. Saturday night on New Year’s Eve suggests a message more from duty than for public education. In it, the chief justice says:
I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties. We are all deeply committed to the common interest in preserving the Court’s vital role as an impartial tribunal governed by the rule of law.
To be sure, the Roberts mention of ethics provides a public service since the courts rarely comment on the topic at all during the year and also make it difficult for litigants and the rest of the public to obtain reliable and timely financial information on judges. Disclosures are in generalities and with a time-lag on the forms, which are primarily available courtesy of the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.
Here’s what Roberts should have recommended:
Instead, the Bush-appointed Republican Roberts argues in essence that increased oversight is neither needed nor permissible under judicial independence mandated by the Constitution. But in a democracy, surely some reform must be Constitutionally permissible.
Recently, the presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich tapped into public concern about activist and otherwise unaccountable judges. His solution is fatally flawed because it relies, in essence, on politicians seeking reprisals against judges based on highly subjective standards.
The better reform is bipartisan commitment to improved procedures that increase accountability, whether the targets are high or low, Democrat or Republican. Little scrutiny exists currently except for the most obvious crimes.
“The Supreme Court affects the life of every American every day,” says former court clerk Edward Lazarus in his iconic study, Closed Chambers. Yet the court is an insular, self-protective body. Presiding over a vast nation, all nine attended Harvard or Yale Law School (although Justice Ruth Ginsberg transferred from Harvard to Columbia for her degree). All but Thomas are from the metro New York region. Its members socialize with one another, generally refrain from self-criticism or reform, and otherwise protect one another under a theory the Constitution makes them accountable to no one, not even their colleagues.
Roberts could help initiate better oversight procedures if he wanted. But his report proves, if nothing else, that it’s still business as usual in the judiciary — unless or until the public demands reform.
January 2, 2012
Ron Paul has placed American foreign policy front and center in the presidential election. Should we even be considering an alternative to our current policies? Definitely not, we’re told, by all of the other candidates for president, both Democrat and Republican. While they were consistently wrong about the prospects for ‘success’ in both Iraq and Afghanistan, most voters are still listening to them. Most voters don’t yet know that Paul emphatically predicted failure, in detail, on both fronts, while also warning about the inflating housing bubble and its inevitable consequences. When voters learn someone is running who actually predicted the establishment’s giant messes, more eyes and ears will turn to Paul.
Presently, voters are being brow-beaten into thinking that Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions are dangerous. Yet in spite of the constant barrage of negative sentiment from media and GOP minions, Dr. Paul is seeking every opportunity to discuss foreign policy with voters. He knows that voters need more than a sound bite to challenge thinking that’s been entrenched for decades. His work is aided by a series of congressional actions, a pattern which provides inescapable proof of catastrophic foreign policy failure.
Consider the proper constitutional purposes of foreign policy: Avoiding military conflict when possible, and keeping the population safe from foreign aggression. Our current foreign policy explicitly abandons the first objective; it requires us to actively seek and engage in war, ostensibly to insure the second objective, keeping us safe. That is exactly how the policy was sold to the American people: We must fight them over there so that they won’t terrorize us over here. It’s probably not an all or nothing question – fighting them over there does not insure that they cannot come here to attack us. Our borders are essentially open; many nations likely have the ability to bring highly-coordinated terror attacks to our shores, if and when they choose, whether we occupy their lands or not.
But we’re not being attacked. Foiled plots are amateurish and often of dubious origin. Maybe all of the real radicals are staying put, in order to fight us over there. That would suggest that the policy is working as intended. But it would also mean that the policy may be endless – if we leave, they will come here, we are constantly told. If it is not safe to leave now, then when, and how can we know? Perhaps we can successfully defend our footholds there for many years and remain ‘safe’ at home. But at some point the people we are fighting will eventually become convinced that fighting us over there won’t dislodge us, and they will turn to the alternative, attacking us here.
In that event, after having abandoned the first proper objective of foreign policy, the same experts will have failed to achieve the second objective, keeping the threat of foreign aggression to a minimum. That would represent total failure of foreign policy, and compel us to examine alternatives. In fact, ongoing critical failure is precisely what we are experiencing. This fact can be established by examining the actions of American lawmakers.
Following 9/11, the ‘Patriot Act’ was dusted off and introduced into law. We were told that some loss of liberty was necessary to insure our safety, and told that our trust would not be abused. Dissenters who cautioned that the Patriot Act was only the beginning were marginalized and written off as being un-patriotic. Congress passed the law without reading it, nonetheless assuring us it was just what was needed to protect us.
Now we know that much more than the Patriot Act was ‘necessary’ to protect us, as our lawmakers have repeatedly demonstrated, most recently with the passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This and other new violations and limitations of liberty have occurred in spite of assurances that no further liberties would need to be lost. We were never told that the Patriot Act was just the beginning of a long and ever-accelerating erosion of our rights; the prophets who foresaw what would follow, such as Ron Paul, were smeared, and the Patriot Act was sold as the solution to our ‘security problems’. Since the passage of the Patriot Act, we’ve seen odious presidential directives, an expanded Patriot act, warrant-less wiretapping, presidential power to assassinate citizens, presidential power to indefinitely detain, torture, and kill citizens without due process of law, internet monitoring and looming censorship, an internet ‘kill-switch’, radiation scanners, TSA groping and strip-searches, data tracking and theft, domestic TSA and military checkpoints – all of this and more has been done quietly or sold to us as also being necessary to protect us.
That means one of two things. Perhaps we can discount the first possibility: the threat is not increasing, but we are ruled by dishonest men with a long-term plan to remove our rights by scaring us into submission. That would leave the second possibility: the threat is growing, which means our foreign policy is failing, utterly. Rather than avoiding war we have sought war as a matter of policy, and our actions have produced an increasing risk of domestic attack and reprisal. The proof is the fact that we are constantly being forced to surrender more of our rights. If our security has not been further compromised, why must we lose more and more of our liberties in order to be ‘safe’?
Ron Paul is the only candidate who acknowledges the steady deconstruction of our liberty and privacy. The others support these dangerous trends – they continue to champion the foreign policy which is causing them.
Both the CIA and Ron Paul agree that America’s foreign policy produces blowback – violent and destabilizing repercussions. In fact, current American foreign policy seems designed to insure maximum blowback, and the actions of our policymakers tell us that this blowback is putting us in greater and greater danger, requiring that we surrender more and more of our liberty. Americans must resist this madness and insist on a sane, sustainable foreign policy.
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
NOTE: First, it should be remembered that the Obama White House pressured Congress to add the controversial language to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin. Second, Signing Statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the character of the chief executive and does signal a dangerous trend in de facto rule by “executive fiat”– and does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written. From Wikipedia: the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor’s Note: Legal-loophole language for Congress’ prior language not giving deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.