The CIA & NYPD: Perilous Insubordination in our Democracy

[ellenrr]

"For the past two weeks, on two different fronts, we have been confronted with the unpleasant fact that there are people working in the institutions of our self-government who believe themselves not only beyond the control and sanctions of the civil power, but also beyond the control and sanctions of their direct superiors. We also have been confronted with the fact that there are too many people in our political elite who are encouraging this behavior for their own purposes, most of which are cheap and dangerous.

"In Washington, John Brennan, the head of the CIA, came right up to the edge of insubordination against the president who hired him in the wake of the Senate report on American torture. Meanwhile, in New York, in the aftermath of weeks of protests against the strangulation of Eric Garner by members of the New York Police Department, two patrolmen, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were murdered in their squad car by a career criminal and apparent maniac named Ismaaiyl Brinsley. In response, and at the encouragement of television hucksters like Joe Scarborough, police union blowhards like Patrick Lynch, political zombies like George Pataki, and comical fascists like Rudolph Giuliani, the NYPD is acting in open rebellion against Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, and the civil power he represents over them.

This is an incredibly perilous time for democracy at the most basic levels.


"It is very simple. If the CIA is insubordinate to the president, whom the country elected, then it is insubordinate to all of us. If the NYPD runs a slow-motion coup against the freely elected mayor of New York, then it is running a slow-motion coup against all the people of New York. There is no exemption from this fundamental truth about the way this country and its system is supposed to work. The military -- and its civilian analogues in Langley and in the precinct houses -- always is subordinate to the civil power which, no matter how much it may chafe them, means that they always are subordinate to politicians.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Insubordination?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_124783503

[Anansi1171]

1. Thanks to you and other posters sharing this information on the...

NYPD and our intelligence services!

[Scuba]

2. Yep. Clapper blatantly lied to Congress yet kept his job.

[cstanleytech]

6. Ya but lying happens in politics I mean take Clinton, he lied and kept his job.

Mind you Clappers lie was I agree far worse but still they both did lie nonetheless

P.S. Yes I did vote for Clinton and I would do so again even if I knew he lied as he was imo the better choice over what the republicans were offering.

[Scuba]

10. Harder to "fire" the President, at least in theory. Clapper could be gone on one word.

[jwirr]

12. He lied about something that was none of Congress's business. Or for that matter mine or yours.

So that one does not fit the argument.

[Bandit]

18. What LIE did Clinton give?

If you are referring to him saying he did not have sexual relations with Monica, he did not LIE according to the LAW. The way the LAW described sexual relations excluded his actions.. What other LIE can you state?

[cstanleytech]

25. Sorry Bandit but a blowjob is sexual relations.

You can try to sugar coat it as much as you want but in the end it is what it is.

[Bandit]

27. In layman's terms yes but as the LAW is stated it is not..

He gave a correct LEGAL answer which was not a LIE.. By your definition a pat on the head could be sexual relations, I guess.

[cstanleytech]

30. We arent discussing the "LAW" but the fact that he lied.

[Bandit]

33. Sorry he did not LIE.

He said he did not have sexual relations with her and as defined by LAW he did not... PERIOD. You can say whatever you want but the fact remains that by accepted definition of Sexual Relations, he did not have them..

[cstanleytech]

36. Yes......he did. I understand why he did and heck I would have done it to probably

if I were in his shoes at the time but the fact is he still lied.

[JDPriestly]

21. It wasn't that Clapper's lie was "worse."

It was that Clapper violated his duty and his oath to tell the truth. Clapper had the duty to tell the truth because he was ordered to do so by Congress which was speaking for the American people and our law in questioning him and because he was lying about what was supposed to be his service to the American people as an employee of the American people. Clapper was showing insubordination to the civil authority to which he is legally required to answer.

Clinton lied about a personal matter which, although it took place in his offices in the White House, did not violate his duty to the American people or to the civil authority of Congress.

Clinton got into trouble not because he had an affair, but because he lied to a court. It's perjury that caused him to have his law license suspended for a while.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrTHRVY.ppU9x4AGQRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzaHE4OGp0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDU1OV8x?qid=20120822101450AAFWkUc

Clapper has not been punished, not by the loss of his job or anything else, or lying to Congress which is the equivalent of lying in court.

If Clinton had lied to the press about his affair with Lewinsky, there would have been no legal penalty, just political embarrassment.

Actually, Clinton's statement to the reporters that he did not have "sex" with "that woman" was sort of a lawyer's weasel and a clever use of language. Cheesy but not illegal and depending on how you define the language, maybe not even a lie. At least that is the argument. Doesn't go over with my generation fery well, but . . . . .

[cstanleytech]

26. But my point is that in the end no matter how you try to sugar coat it they both lied.

[JDPriestly]

40. And Clinton lied abou something having nothing to do with breaking the trust of the American

people, only the trust of his wife. Yet, Clinton was punished by being suspended from the legal profession, the Bar Associaiton.

Clapper has not been punished at all, although he lied about something of great national and international importance, of importance to all Americans who use any form of electronic media, especially those whose work or family relationships or friendships involve them in communications with people in other countries.

Clinton lied to a court and was punished for it.

Clappper lied to Congress and got by with it.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. Clapper's lies continue to endanger the American public, Clinton's non-lie-lie did not.

[grasswire]

54. Clapper lied about criminal activity -- treasonous activity.

Clinton lied (if he did) about consensual sex between adults.

[JDPriestly]

57. Thank you. You said so well what I was saying so badly. Thanks.

[malaise]

59. +1,000

[cstanleytech]

60. First I suggest you review what is treasonous and what is not as this isnt.

Criminal? Only thing they might be able to get him for is his lie under oath but since the program itself was being monitored by one of the varies government committees he probably will be protected from being charged as he can and probably will claim that he couldnt answer otherwise as it was a classified program.

[grasswire]

61. you don't consider breaking into Senate Intelligence Cmte computers...

....and providing false information and false witness regarding this criminal act to be treasonous?

It was a Constitutional crisis, perpetrated by the CIA.

Fire him, then indict him.

[cstanleytech]

63. Nope not treasonous at all in any way unless he did it to assist a foreign power.

Might be criminal but again if he didnt hide the activity from whoever was providing the oversight securing an indictment let alone a conviction will be difficult because you would probably have to also indict the committee members.

[kentuck]

3. Absolutely right!

and very, very dangerous.

[mountain grammy]

4. K & R

[starroute]

5. "Police state" used to mean something like Nazi Germany

The implication was one of a totalitarian government using the secret police to keep the population under its control. We never dreamed that the police force itself could defy the civil government, declare itself the ultimate power, and insist that citizens obey its every order without question on penalty of death.

This tendency has to be broken before it destroys us. The NYPD in particular needs to be whittled down to size. We have posse commitatus to prevent the military from being used in civilian law enforcement -- but no safeguards to prevent law enforcement from turning into an unaccountable military. And because there were no police forces when the Constitution was written, there's nothing in the Bill of Rights to protect us either.

[jwirr]

14. You are correct. There is a difference between the Nazi police state and the one we are allowing

to develop. I remember listening to the news years ago when South America had one coup via the military after another. That's more like our police state is acting like.

[AikidoSoul]

24. We do not have Posse Comitatus any longer, it was eliminated

in 2006 by Bush II.

I have the full permission of the author to post this article in its entirety. Unfortunately the link to Senator Patrick Leahy's comments is no longer working.


Posse Comitatus Shot Through the Heart

By Ashley Simmons Hotz - November 02, 2006

Here's the 21st Century version of what has happened to Posse Comitatus: it has been thoroughly trashed. And it was done quietly.

But now you can hear the screaming from Washington, D.C. to the Pacific Ocean.... and beyond. The changes sneaked into law now given George W. Bush new powers. They open the door to use the military for policing actions to "restore public order", and gives the president much leeway to exercise these powers. One of the most troubling is that he can now mobilize the National Guard without the permission of state governors, and can move them into other states -- for up to 365 days.

But some changes to the law are so subtle that you might miss them. See if you can find the new doors that have now opened for the president to act. Here are the changes:

* Section 522 (House section 511) extends from 270 days to 365 days
the period for which the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve may be involuntarily called to active duty.
* Section 1076 (Senate section 1042):

o Amends the "Insurrection Act" (i.e., Chapter 15 of title 10, U.S. Code) by:

§ Changing the title of chapter 15 of title 10, U.S. Code) from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order";

§ Changing the title of section 333 of chapter 15 from "Interference with State and Federal Law" to "Major Public Emergencies; Interference with State and Federal Law";

§ Clarifying the President's authority, under section 33 of chapter 15, to use the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, without a request from a State governor, to restore order and enforce Federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down; and

§ Including those who are obstructing the laws to the existing requirement for the President to issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

o Amends Chapter 152 of title 10, U.S. Code, to authorize, with certain limitations, the President, in any situation he determines to exercise the authority provided in section 333 of chapter 15, to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment (e.g., food, water, utilities, transportation, search and rescue, medical care, and other assistance necessary to save lives and property) to persons affected by the incident.

o Amends section 12304 of title 10, U.S. Code, eliminating the limitation imposed on the President's authority to involuntarily call to active duty members of the reserve components to perform law enforcement and other duties in response to serious natural or man-made disasters, accidents, or catastrophes to only those incidents involving terrorist or weapons of mass destruction threats or attacks.

How was this done? It was done in the dead of night in the Congress of the United States. It was slipped into the Defense Appropriations Bill of 2006 entitled, "USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES". The original language of the provision was stripped out and new language put in its place.

Senator Patrick Leahy (remember him? He's the senator who was sent U.S. military vintage anthrax some years back, but the cuprits were were never caught). He, along with other Democratic members of congress have expressed public outrage that Posse Comitatus has been gutted after almost two hundred years. According to Leahy, his committee had created the original language for the provision that empowered the National Guard, but the new language empowers the president instead. Leahy says the language, "...was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

This late night tactic has become the prevailing modus operandi of the Republican Congress.

Let's be clear there was no reason for this law except to seize power to act unilaterally to mobilize the National Guard without needing to consult state governors, and to easily allow the president to use the armed forces for law enforcment in America's streets.

The implications of this are mind boggling. If anyone argues that these new powers are needed for disasters and terrorism, please forget that argument. For many years the armed forces have played major roles in emergencies, disasters, drug interdiction, and other situations. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1984, (called the Stafford Act and amended in 1988 under 42 US Code Section 5121 et seq.), provides the authority under which armed forces' assistance is given. And if you look hard, you will see that no president was ever prosecuted for violation of Posse Comitatus, although there have been some notable violations. The powers that were there were sufficient, but George W. Bush wanted more.

Senator Patrick Leahy's entire official statement regarding the new provision:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html

Here are two of the most salient quotes from Senator Leahy's official statement about the new provision being slipped into the bill:

"It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. "

"The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked Posse Comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

Many of us fear that this power has been grabbed to stop any and all public reactions to another stolen election. The public is much, much more aware of this problem now. There are press reports in several states of voters trying to vote for Democrats, but the machines keep showing votes for Republicans instead. Even conservative computer scientist Dan Wallach admitted today that after years of studying security issues with computerized voting machines that, "All the reports I've seen have generally been at the expense of Democrats "

What a pity that we have a president and a congress that have willfully worked to shred so many of the intricate protections that our Democratic system of checks and balances produced over two centuries. As we see each component of these efforts slip into place, we see a fabric forming of disturbing shape and color that theatens to ensnare us all.

Ashley Simmons Hotz
Monticello, FL

[starroute]

31. Oh, swell

I knew they'd fiddled with it after Hurricane Katrina but not the extent to which they'd gutted it. I guess we have yet to see how far they'll dare to push the use of it if things get testy over the next year or two.

[Oilwellian]

58. Well, they do have this in their back pocket, ready to use

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD). Each year's act also includes other provisions, some related to civil liberties.

Everyone should understand what's in the NDAA before the full Senate makes a big mistake and paves the way for Guantánamo-style indefinite detention being brought to the United States itself.

The new Senate NDAA:

Brings Indefinite Detention to the U.S. Itself: The bill now says that detainees may be brought to the United States for "detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF). In plain English, that means the policy of indefinite detention by the military, without charge or trial, could be carried out here at home. Right now, the number of people in the U.S. in military indefinite detention is zero. If the bill is enacted, that number could immediately jump to 100 or more.

Bolsters Claims of NDAA and AUMF Indefinite Detention Authority: The AUMF is the basis for the indefinite detention authority included in the NDAA that Congress passed nearly three years ago. Indefinite detention is wrong today and certainly cannot be sustained past the end of U.S. combat in the Afghan war. But passing a new Senate NDAA that relies on detention authority based on the AUMF, just as the U.S. combat role in the war is winding down, could be used by the government to bolster its claim that indefinite detention can just keep on going. Even when any actual U.S. combat is over.

Requires Report on Even More NDAA and AUMF Indefinite Detention Authority: As if the government didn't already have enough claims of indefinite detention authority, the Senate NDAA asks the administration to let Congress know what more indefinite detention authority it wants.

Tries to Strip Federal Courts of Ability to Decide Challenges to Harmful Conditions: In a stunning provision, the Senate NDAA tries to strip federal courts of their ability to "hear or consider" any challenge related to harmful treatment or conditions by detainees brought to the United States. This provision tries to gut our system of checks and balances by cutting out the courts.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

[L0oniX]

7. The CIA is one of the most incompetent gov orgs ...too many mistakes ...they are unreliable.

Just ask Iraq.

[woo me with science]

8. It's not a democracy. And it's not insubordination. These are chosen policies,

moving us swiftly into fascism.

The "elected," corporate-purchased government has gone to great lengths in the courts, legislatively, through appointments, and through executive actions to entrench, expand, defend, and legalize the very policies that allow this torture, perpetual war, dismantling of our civil liberties, and obscene militarization of our police.


__________________________________________________________

I'm typing on the internet. That PROVES we're free!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025914695#post28

....
It's a corporate-authoritarian state being very carefully and deliberately constructed around us.

Psst. Our president has a "Kill List." And indefinite detention. And a surveillance state. And an entire secret government, secret laws and secret courts, operating alongside the one we are taught about in school. And all it takes to become part of that is for someone to invoke the word, "terrorism" and relate it to you.

"But that's a high bar!" all the sensible woodchucks will protest. "I TRUST my president! And it's only for TERRORISTS!"

Really? And do you trust the next one?

Actually, we're all being spied on. And "terrorism" is being invoked as a weapon against political dissent.

Report Details How Counter Terrorism Apparatus Was Used to Monitor Occupy Movement Nationwide
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527647

Whoop, There It Is... 'Evidence Homeland Security Coordinated Occupy Crackdown' -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002462465

ACLU discovers FBI is labeling peace activists as 'potential terrorists'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4500788

And the most sinister aspect of all of this is the fact that the language of terrorism and espionage is being actively expanded to include whatever citizens or groups the corporatists consider to be irritants: political enemies, protesters, even journalists.

Protestors against Energy Company charged with terrorism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024175848

Mission Creep: When Everything is Terrorism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023279560

US Uses Espionage Act To Convict Manning Using Words Added In 1990: "with a computer"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023375845

Fed Court: Just changed interpretation of Espionage Act to cover leaks that are NOT Harmful To USA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023365713

NY Times: White House Uses Espionage Act to Silence Employees, Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101616764

Obama Has Charged More Under Espionage Act Than All Other Presidents Combined
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080388

If you are a One Percenter trying to effectively use the government you have purchased to manage unpleasant press about what you are doing, what do you do? Well, one tactic might be to try to get the government into the business of deciding who is a journalist. That way you can claim to establish "protections" for whistleblowers, when what you are actually doing is creating categories through which you can exclude from protection those you don't want to protect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023708417
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4976955
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4976082
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4976955

Yeah, journalism isn't doing too well in this country. One might say it is being murdered. There's a reason it's supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. That reason is not compatible with increasingly totalitarian corporate control.

Petition Calls On Obama Stop Intimidation Of Journalists And Whistleblowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025509395

Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023300531

James Clapper Calls Journalists "Criminal Accomplices" -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017174990

Reporters without Borders: 'Security interests threaten press freedom'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11333723

US Plummets In Press Freedom Rankings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024487392

Obama's escalating war on Freedom of the Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023314296

Risen Case: War on Journalism coming to a head
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101699216

Government Surveillance Is Crippling Press Freedoms, Report Shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023902153

So....you shut up the journalists.

And you shut up the protesters.

Who else do you need to shut up?

Ah....all the people who work for the government, many of whom can be assumed to still have consciences and thus be potentially dangerous to the corporate coup of democracy. How do you handle them?

Well, you can fire them. See, it's *useful* for the government of an ostensibly free nation to have highly visible groups engaged in protest...like the Black Panthers, etc....and not to deny them employment or do anything serious to them. It gives the illusion of freedom. But look what we learned of recently, about how firings happen at the Federal Reserve:

The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025587384

But you can also wage legal war against their power to function as whistleblowers. And you assault the unions that protect them.

The Obama administration/DOJ war on whistleblowers, federal unions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5586389

You can institute draconian snitch rules to intimidate those who might be thinking about whistleblowing:

President's 'rat out your co-worker' plan unlikely to work, experts say
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023214675

And you claim the right to spy on them even at home.

You let the dissent flourish, as long as it's safe dissent. But you take care of the stuff that has the potential to be truly threatening. Most importantly, you make a vicious example of those who carry through with revealing corruption:

Daniel Ellsburg: Snowden would not get a fair trial today, was right to flee US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11784497
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023198130

Bradley Manning: top US legal scholars voice outrage at torture
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x871563

That includes those who whistleblow on financial institutions, not just the government. Since you're not prosecuting the banking criminals, you have plenty of time to send up a guy who tried to identify them:

Bradley Birkenfeld, UBS Whistleblower, Finds Himself in Federal Prison
http://www.cnbc.com//id/41257962

It's a delicate line to walk, all this intimidation while still claiming to be the beacon of freedom for the world. But the intimidation is necessary, because people are starting to catch on.

No, nobody has sent the jackboots to line up the protesters in front of everyone and methodically kill them. But we're seeing the next best thing.

Militarizing the hell out of the police departments. That way it's blamed on some "programs"....but it sends a clear psychological message to the upstarts.

Stopping police militarization: Once again, the solution requires confronting corporate politicians.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025416709

Federal grants drive the militarization of police departments in America.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025383806

And then you get this:


And this:


Three of the five Occupy violence pics I used to use regularly now I cannot find anywhere on the internet; if I could, I'd put them here, too. The elderly woman tear-gassed, the mobs of jackbooted storm troopers surrounding a few people on a blanket...

And, meanwhile, out in the community, the militarized police are starting to terrorize ordinary citizens, mostly the impoverished and voiceless ones. But the corporate-controlled federal government keeps sending the hardware and the storm trooper uniforms, even encouraging it with grants, and they refuse to keep records on how many citizens have been murdered. How many were there this week?

"What I've Learned from Two Years Collecting Data on Police Killings...
...I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025429276

Twenty-Three People Killed by American Police in the Span of One Week
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025593137

We're all suspects, potential terrorists now. and the mechanisms are in place to ensure that any dissent that begins to bubble up can be handled and eliminated before it materializes in any serious way.

The truth is that you don't know what dissent may have already been cut off at the root, because of the elaborate, secret, unaccountable system that has been put into place. We know that the president has sought the power to lie in response to Freedom of Information requests. We know that data collected from NSA spying has been used to imprison Americans using false evidence trails. We know that the CIA can spy on the Senate Intelligence Committee with impunity and nothing is done about it, and that Clapper can lie to Congress and the Department of Justice can lie to the Supreme Court about spying and nothing is done. These are just the things we know.

DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Construct False Chains of Evidence
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4507611

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To Freedom of Information Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

DOJ lied to Supreme Court about domestic surveillance
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140514/06214727229/doj-still-trying-to-hide-fact-it-flat-out-lied-to-supreme-court-about-domestic-surveillance.shtml

The sensible woodchucks keep telling us that someone has to be actively involved in VERY SERIOUS TERRORISM against the United States of America in order for our government to start throwing *that* word around, or showing an interest in us. But we are all surveilled, and the methods for it keep expanding. If you think about it, it's GOOD for corporate control to have people posting dissent on the internet. It helps you know whom to watch. Voiced dissent is USEFUL as long as it doesn't lead to anything...you know, serious. Our corporate government is keeping an eye on us.

OKC protestors slapped with terrorism charges
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024175848

A Nation of "Suspects"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5011487
http://www.truth-out.org/nation-suspects/1314810046

American Protesters Declared Enemy for Weapons Testing Purposes; Rules of Engagement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2132808#2139011

DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100227662

Ridiculous FBI list: You might be a domestic terrorist if...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1790765

Doctors asked to identify potential terrorists under government plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1261120&mesg_id=1261120

Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002257966

Top US counterterrorism official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002279862

"Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/

N.S.A. Examines Social Networks of U.S. Citizens (Decision Made In Secret, in 2010)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014605329

Now, you tell me.

Why would the corporatists who have purchased into our government and rely on its reputation as the beacon of freedom and democracy for the world, use such heavy-handed and politically damaging tactics as shutting down the internet or ostentatiously lining up protesters to shoot them in the streets, when they have already put into place and legalized this elegant system to control dissent?

It's way past time to be clear about what we are facing. Our elected government is not wringing its hands over any of this. On the contrary, they sit in their expensive political seats specifically to enable its construction through their daily policy choices and to play their roles in all the absurd propaganda that tries to pretend that militarized police departments, dismantling of our civil liberties, and impoverishment of a nation plunged into endless war happens without the constant, diligent complicity of purchased politicians of the oligarchy.

Yeah, I'm typing on the internet. That PROVES we're free.

[Enthusiast]

11. +1 an entire shit load.

[broiles]

19. Excellent!

[hifiguy]

23. Keep preachin' the TRUTH, woo.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[wavesofeuphoria]

29. +1 great post as always!

[gregcrawford]

32. Nailed it!

A LOT of work went into amassing all this information. Thank you. It'll take a while to get through it all, though!

[bbgrunt]

34. yep. wmws, standing ovation!

[WillyT]

46. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[polly7]

47. + Another Million.

And as we've already seen ...... this is worldwide and already affecting the poorest of the poor that these 1% already control via corporate takeovers and gov't co-operation - 'legal' and not, and ..... spreading. We'll all feel the results of this corporate ownership last, but the poor among us in every country have suffered because of it now for years.

[Ramses]

64. Damn, excellent reply

Way more substantive and articulate than i could ever make . Bravo!

[billhicks76]

9. The Crime

Both those disingenuous organizations believe the reporting and protesting of the crime is worse than the crime itself. This is why they are akin to The Nazis.

[Enthusiast]

13. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. They told me if I became an anarchist the people with the power would run riot and

be free of any real controls.

[JEB]

16. Fascism. Pure and simple.

[christx30]

17. This is why I'm against so many

laws being passed in this country. Those laws have to be enforced by someone. You keep giving organizations (like the CIA or police departments) more and more power, they will evenually turn that power against you.

[JDPriestly]

37. We could have law enforcement that enforced the laws but did not eventually turn

power against you.

The solution is not to become a lawless state in which corpoations and criminals are free to turn THEIR power against us.

The solution is to end the corruption in our government. We should look at what Theodore Roosevelt tried to begin, how he tried to clean up government, how he dealt with Tammany Hall, what worked and what failed and see what we can do to clean up our government.

[christx30]

38. There are some slight shades of gray between

what we have now and a lawless state. You take away the law against selling loosies on the street corner, and Eric Garner is still alive. The cops wouldn't have messed with him.
The thing to do is take away the power from the police and the politicians. It'll never happen, of course, but it's a nice thought.

[JDPriestly]

39. Why do you suppose there is a law against selling loosies?

It is probably to prevent people from selling loosies to kids who can easily get addicted. Sales of packs of cigarettes are carefully monitored.

Cigarettes cause diseases that cost the government, the people of the United States not only a lot fo money but also a lot pain and suffering.

I'm 71. I still have a few friends who smoke, but most of my friends who smoked and especialy those who smoked a lot died young and of diseases that involved a lot of awful, expensive treatments.

[christx30]

43. I hate smoking and cigarettes.

I hate laws against them more. Laws less to people breaking them, which brings law enforcement, resistance, and death.
Don't make anything illegal unless you are willing to kill to have that law enforced, because it may come to that.

[JDPriestly]

44. No laws against drunk driving or running red lights or fraud, etc.?

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but that is in my view immature nonsense.

[christx30]

45. I'm in favor of laws to stop people from hurting or killing each other.

In favor of is long as I get things like loosies which does not protect children, it just protects the tax flow for the city. New York are nearly $12 a pack. A lot of poor people that like smoking cannot afford that. So they turn to the guys on the street that can just sell them one for a dollar.i'm not saying what they do is a public service, but people are just trying to get by and these guys help. that's how the Eric Garner case came about. They weren't trying to protect "the children", try to protect their own revenue. The cops were being ordered to stop the sale of loosies just to act as a revenue generator for the city. Eric Garner resisted the cops attempts to stop him (because he's just trying to make living anyway he can) and he died as a result.
You take cigarettes down reasonable price, about 4 to 5 dollars per pack, and guys like Eric Garner something else, he doesn't die.

[JDPriestly]

48. The tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes helps the city cover its losses that are due to

smoking. In a huge city like New York, you have to include fire department costs for fires caused by cigarettes, ambulance costs, healthcare costs, paying people to sweep up cigarette butts from the streets and other places and all the general costs of enforcing rules about where and when to smoke. Sorry. Smoking is a dirty habit.

One of the purposes of the high taxes on cigarettes is to discourage smoking.

The high taxes on packs of cigarettes are something that those of us who neither smoke nor like to be around people smoking favor very much. Thank you.

No one should die for violating some minor law like the regulation against selling single cigarettes, but the law itself is not to blame. Excessive force on the part of police officers is to blame for Garner's death.

It's not the rules that are at fault. It is the way they are enforced: discrimination and excessive force.

[christx30]

55. The no nonsense regulation

and enforcement of those taxes are 100% at fault in those deaths. For all of your good intentions, there are people out there that are just trying to make it, and don't give a rip about your high intentions or the reasons for the high taxes. They are going to do what they want, and the mayor orders the cops to crack down on those people. So if you support the taxes, you can't be suprised when things go badly for people that don't want to pay them. This isn't solely about police brutality. This is about the laws that give the police the power to crack down on people.

[JDPriestly]

56. Without this or that law, people who want to "crack down" on other people with violence will

find some excuse to do that. Laws can be enforced peacefully. It is done in other countries all the time.

I spoke the other day to a lawyer who specialized in police brutality cases. I asked her what could be done to stop police brutality. She said that we need to select police more carefully. We need to select officers on the basis of their ability solve human problems and resolve conflicts, not on the basis of their physical strength. There are plenty of people who can solve problems and resolve conflicts who had enough strength to be police officers.

Wilson is the perfect example of a person who was not really good at resolving conflicts.

It isn't the laws that are the problem. The laws represent the will of the majority of the people. If they don't they tend to get changed.

The problem is the people we endow with the authority to enforce our laws.

[JDPriestly]

20. K&R.

This:

'If we render our torturers superior to the political institutions of the government, and if we render the police superior to the civil power of elected officials, then we essentially have empowered independent standing armies to conduct our wars and enforce our laws, and self-government descends into bloody farce.'

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Insubordination?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_124783503#comments

Hits home with me That just sums it up. It should go viral.

One of the comments linked to a Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone on this topic. I don't know whether any of the above comments linked to it, but it is really worth reading. Taibbi spent time in an arraignment court that dealt with minor crimes that can be used to torment the poor, especially people of color. Here goes:

"If Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon had come up with the concept of selling loosies, they'd go to their graves defending it as free economic expression that "creates liquidity" and should never be regulated.

Taking it one step further, if Eric Garner had been selling naked credit default swaps instead of cigarettes – if in other words he'd set up a bookmaking operation in which passersby could bet on whether people made their home mortgage payments or companies paid off their bonds – the police by virtue of a federal law called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act would have been barred from even approaching him.

There were more cops surrounding Eric Garner on a Staten Island street this past July 17th then there were surrounding all of AIG during the period when the company was making the toxic bets that nearly destroyed the world economy years ago. Back then AIG's regulator, the OTS, had just one insurance expert on staff, policing a company with over 180,000 employees.

This is the crooked math that's going to crash American law enforcement if policies aren't changed. We flood poor minority neighborhoods with police and tell unwitting officers to aggressively pursue an interventionist strategy that sounds like good solid policing in a vacuum."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-police-in-america-are-becoming-illegitimate-20141205?page=2

So true. So true. So true.

Wealth is, in most cases, for the already rich. And freedom, similarly, in most cases, is for the already free.

Like Cassandra, we can see the bleak future that this injustice is sure to lead to, but we can't seem to get anyone to listen to the truth of our vision.

[hifiguy]

22. It has been fascism for about twenty years now.

The mask is only now starting to be removed.

Corporate control of government, elections that are in most ways meaningless, plus wholly unaccountable and completely arbitrary "police" powers is pretty much the textbook definition of a fascist power structure.

[Comrade Grumpy]

28. Meet the praetorian guard.

[blkmusclmachine]

35. Fascism

[KingCharlemagne]

41. A very important essay by Pierce. He does not say what he thinks should or

can be done to fix this sad state of affairs, but merely contents himself with accurately describing the current state of affairs.

Highly recommended.

[hifiguy]

50. Unfortunately that is about all anyone can do.

Both political parties are wholly in thrall to the same corporate/tenth-percenter interests. There are no alternatives anymore. The coup has been completed.

The List – compiled by DU's woo me with science

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.

To this I would add: Completely unaccountable intelligence and "law enforcement" agencies? Both parties support them.
___________________

We are fucked, royally.

[KingCharlemagne]

51. There are alternatives, although decorum and the ToS prevent them from

being fully discussed or debated here. The victory of Kshama Sawant in Seattle (of the Socialist Alternative party) suggests one possible alternative forward. (Sawant currently enjoys the highest approval rating of any Seattle City Councilperson and her current approval rating at 61% is stratospheric, compared to that of the various corporate whores on the Seattle City Council.) We must recognize, I think, that mighty movements do not develop overnight (although Occupy shows they can spread with the speed of a prairie wildfire) but require the 'long game' and patience. Granted, we may not be able to afford such luxuries any longer. But all hope is not yet lost.

Brett Hamill's sarcastic video illustrates Sawant's potential power and I provide it to bolster your spirits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uIb49dvGwng

[DeSwiss]

42. Duh. - K&R n/t

[True Blue Door]

49. Always the elite think the power they wield is their property rather than a revocable trust.

The people must always be ready to correct this misimpression.

[Octafish]

53. It's GESTAPO when the Secret Police know where I live, my politics, and who I talk to.

They can track my cell phone and online communication.
They can spy on me without a warrant.
They can search my home and person without a warrant.
They can seize my property and use it for their own purposes without due process.
They can use the powers of the state to harass me at work and at home.
They can ruin me financially through trivial criminal and civil action.
They can imprison me on false charges, like was done to Gov. Don Siegelman and Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden.
They can even, should I be classified an Enemy, have me vaporized by drone or stuffed into cement shoes by gangsters, without a warrant.

How is that not a Police State?

"Friendly Fascism" is how Bertrand Gross put it in 1980. The professor served FDR and the New Deal Democrats and is remembered today for his work to reduce poverty. Among his accomplishments, he helped author the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. Later he taught at CUNY and Wayne State University in Detroit, where he founded the Center for Urban Studies.

Friendly Fascism

The New Face of Power in America

by Bertram Gross
South End Press, 1980, paper

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Friendly_Fascism_BGross.html

INTRO EXCERPT...

Friendly fascism portrays two conflicting trends in the United States and other countries of the so-called "free world."

The first is a slow and powerful drift toward greater concentration of power and wealth in a repressive Big Business-Big Government partnership. This drift leads down the road toward a new and subtly manipulative form of corporatist serfdom. The phrase "friendly fascism" helps distinguish this possible future from the patently vicious corporatism of classic fascism in the past of Germany, Italy and Japan. It also contrasts with the friendly present of the dependent fascisms propped up by the U.S. government in El Salvador, Haiti, Argentina, Chile, South Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere.

The other is a slower and less powerful tendency for individuals and groups to seek greater participation in decisions affecting themselves and others. This trend goes beyond mere reaction to authoritarianism. It transcends the activities of progressive groups or movements and their use of formal democratic machinery. It is nourished by establishment promises-too often rendered false-of more human rights, civil rights and civil liberties. It is embodied in larger values of community, sharing, cooperation, service to others and basic morality as contrasted with crass materialism and dog-eat-dog competition. It affects power relations in the household, workplace, community, school, church, synagogue, and even the labyrinths of private and public bureaucracies. It could lead toward a truer democracy-and for this reason is bitterly fought...

These contradictory trends are woven fine into the fabric of highly industrialized capitalism. The unfolding logic of friendly fascist corporatism is rooted in "capitalist society's transnational growth and the groping responses to mounting crises in a dwindling capitalist world". Mind management and sophisticated repression become more attractive to would-be oligarchs when too many people try to convert democratic promises into reality. On the other hand, the alternative logic of true democracy is rooted in "humankind's long history of resistance to unjustified privilege" and in spontaneous or organized "reaction (other than fright or apathy) to concentrated power...and inequality, injustice or coercion".

A few years ago too many people closed their eyes to the indicators of the first tendency.

But events soon began to change perceptions.

The Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis crept out of the woodwork. An immoral minority of demagogues took to the airwaves. "Let me tell you something about the character of God," orated Jim Robison at a televised meeting personally endorsed by candidate Ronald Reagan. "If necessary, God would raise up a tyrant, a man who may not have the best ethics, to protect the freedom interests of the ethical and the godly." To protect Western oil companies, candidate Jimmy Carter proclaimed presidential willingness to send American troops into the Persian Gulf. Rosalyn Carter went further by telling an lowa campaign audience: "Jimmy is not afraid to declare war." Carter then proved himself unafraid to expand unemployment, presumably as an inflation cure, thereby reneging on his party's past full employment declarations.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/RiseFall_Friend_Fascism_FF.html

That was 1980 or 1 B.R. -- Before Reagan. The good professor painted an accurate picture of what was to come for us in 34 A.R. -- After Reagan.

James Madison

EXCERPT...

Despite the sharp differences from classic fascism, there are also some basic similarities. In each, a powerful oligarchy operates outside of, as well as through, the state. Each subverts constitutional government. Each suppresses rising demands for wider participation in decision making, the enforcement and enlargement of human rights, and genuine democracy. Each uses informational control and ideological flimflam to get lower and middle-class support for plans to expand the capital and power of the oligarchy and provide suitable rewards for political, professional, scientific, and cultural supporters.

A major difference is that under friendly fascism Big Government would do less pillaging of, and more pillaging for, Big Business. With much more integration than ever before among transnational corporations, Big Business would run less risk of control by any one state and enjoy more subservience by many states. In turn, stronger government support of transnational corporations, such as the large group of American companies with major holdings in South Africa, requires the active fostering of all latent conflicts among those segments of the American population that may object to this kind of foreign venture. It requires an Establishment with lower levels so extensive that few people or groups can attain significant power outside it, so flexible that many (perhaps most) dissenters and would-be revolutionaries can be incorporated within it. Above all, friendly fascism in any First World country today would \ use sophisticated control technologies far beyond the ken of the classic fascists.

p177
Although American hegemony can scarcely return in its Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson form, this does not necessarily signify the end of the American Century. Nor does communist and socialist advance on some fronts mark American and capitalist retreat on all fronts. There are unmistakable tendencies toward a rather thoroughgoing reconstruction of the entire "Free World." Robert Osgood sees a transitional period of "limited readjustment" and "retrenchment without disengagement," after which America could establish a "more enduring rationale of global influence." Looking at foreign policy under the Nixon administration, Robert W. Tucker sees no intention to "dismantle the empire" but rather a continued commitment to the view that "America must still remain the principal guarantor of a global order now openly and without equivocation identified with the status quo." He describes America as a "settled imperial power shorn of much of the former exuberance." George Liska looks forward to a future in which Americans, having become more mature in the handling of global affairs, will at last be the leaders of a true empire.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Specter_FriendlyFascism_FF.html

Regarding today's Police State:

The Criminal Police State can now:

Avoid punishment for murder
Lay Seige to American cities
Use FBI for terrorist attacks
Spy on all US citizens
Spy on and intimidate citizens
Brand anyone a terrorist
Ignore the Bill of Rights entirely
Illegally imprison American citizens
Assassinate Americans: 1 2
Loot taxpayer money for fat-cats

A capitalist cabal has seized political and economic power over the nation and now steals all elections by selecting candidates for both parties

In a free society:

Police agencies respond only to evidence of planned and actual criminal activity.
Police officers keep the peace; they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate.
Police do not investigate citizens' attitudes toward the central government, only their action.
Citizen dissent is lawful and police agencies do not investigate citizens' attitudes toward the criminal justice apparatus.

Those conditions no longer exist in the United States!

SOURCE: http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm

I think it may be time for a Constitutional Convention -- one in each state and then a big one on a federal level. We don't need to re-do the the Constitution we have. We just need to amend it in order to get rid of the secret police and the banksters for whom they spy -- you know, the Police State.

[grasswire]

62. I fear a Constitutional Convention.

There are more red states than blue.