Ya Know... The Naomi Wolf/PERF/DHS/#OWS Conundrum Is An Interesting Problem Here...

[WillyT]

I understand that a verifiable DIRECT LINK between the DHS and various "City Fathers" (most of them Democrats) has not quite been made... if we are to prove every single thing as if in a court of law.

But I'm of the age and cynicism, where, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." is pretty much good enough for me.

But...

As has been the case since "our side" won the Presidential Election in 2008... we are reduced to either defending anything Barack Obama might be in charge of, or expressing our frustration that if he's in charge, why doesn't he change their (in this case: DHS's) behavior?

The thing is... many folks here might possibly... just possibly... be singing a different tune, if John McCain & Sara Palin were sitting in the WH... and in charge of DHS... when there were mass protests being evicted all across the country.

No ???

:shrug:

[tabatha]

1. Barack Obama is not in charge of DHS.

[WillyT]

2. Well Hell Tabatha... THAT... Is Breaking News !!!!

:D

:hi:

[Zorra]

4. lol! Well, he probably maybe likes them a lot. nt

[Vanje]

5. Janet Napolitano is the current head of DHS (Dept of Homeland Securitry)

She serves in the Administration of one , Barrack Obama.

Obama appointed her.
Obama is her boss.

Obama is the HEAD of the HEAD of DHS.

But don;t take my word for it. The Google is at your command.

[loudsue]

24. When the Act was written that created the DHS, it was expressly

written, at one point from DU researchers (of whom I am NOT one), that the president wasn't supposed to be the head of it. I did not research the Act itself to write this post, but I remember thinking that it was pretty F...... weird that they stipulated that the president was basically overruled when it came to anything under the jurisdiction of the DHS.

[KoKo]

31. So...it could go renegade ...whether Obama appointed the head of the agency or not..

Interesting.

[tabatha]

25. Wow! blow me over with a feather !!

Really? I would never have thought.

Of course a president appoints the head of DHS.

Of course a president is the head of the head of DHS.

Of course the president is not the head of DHS.

DUH! DUH!

[Webster Green]

17. No shit?

Boy, I guess I owe the chimp a big apology.

Wait a minute.....no I don't. You are totally incorrect.

Very sad to see that all this chimpy stuff that Obama pulls is OK because he's a democrat. :puke:

[rhett o rick]

19. You are right of course, but I bet he has a lot of pull. nm

[JackRiddler]

28. I guess things are even worse than Naomi Wolf thought.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. beleive you me, the evidence is there

just not obvious and until the dust settles and there are actual hearings... we will not know just how bad or not so bad this is. It is happening. The Feds will simply infiltrate a group of 50K knitters... that many people raise concerns, and have always raised concerns.

It does not go all the way to the WH... these things are triggered at a MUCH LOWER level... but the fact is they are.

And during the 1960s, the last time something like this happened, the government got quite schizoid about it. On the one hand the upper level of the Federal Government wanted to work with MLK, while on the other his file and spying by the FBI really got out of hand.

To consider something similar is not that crazy.

And in fact, for the whole decade SDS and others KNEW they had both local and federal agents coming in and infiltrating. None would give them the time of day... not until the hearings in '76.

So even if she got all of it wrong, and I mean ALL of it, including Chairman's King's role in the oversight committee... the fact is that this is happening. It is just the way it is. And anybody who believes otherwise, really needs to crack up a history book or two. And there are a couple things in the details she probably got wrong... until dust settles we will not know what she got right.

[WillyT]

10. Remember THIS Term ??? - "Plausible Deniability"

Results of the 1973 Church Committee Hearings, on CIA misdeeds, and the 1984 Iran/Contra Hearings....

A major requirement of covert operations over the years has been that in the event something goes wrong, the president, as head of state in the U.S., should be able to believably deny any knowledge of the clandestine activity. This concept is known as plausible deniability and it has been a cornerstone in the foundation of presidential decisions to authorize covert operations. The misconception that plausible deniability is a valid method of concealing U.S. involvement in covert activities has led to a number of problems over the years.

The doctrine of plausible deniability led to many of the widespread abuses of power that occurred in the CIA before the Intelligence Reform Era in the mid-1970s. It led the agency to believe that CIA officers had a green light to conduct almost any actions they saw fit to reach their goals. McGeorge Bundy, a former Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to President's Kennedy and Johnson, has stated:

While in principle it has always been the understanding of senior government officials outside the CIA that no covert operations would be undertaken without the explicit approval of "higher authority", there has also been a general expectation within the Agency that it was proper business to generate attractive proposals and to stretch them, in operation, to the furthest limit of any authorization actually received.

Link: http://pw1.netcom.com/~ncoic/cia_info.htm#Plausible%20Deniability

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Lets put it this way

there is more than just reason to believe that we trained Battalion 100 in El Salvador, with the help of the US in the form of the CIA... speaking of Iran Contra. Hell, there has even been admittance of such by former soldiers of the Battalion. Oh and there is first hand evidence from ahem Guests... you still could not connect it to the WH since it is so byzantine... all the links and all that.

And we are at another one of those moments I suspect.

When dust settles it will be hard to get direct links... unless we have direct testimony.

Some things never change.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Yes. The evidence is there. And, hopefully we will be privy to it one day. But, currently we are

not. So every conclusion that we draw, AT THIS POINT IN TIME is only from conclusions drawn from historical evidence.

We are so much stronger as a movement if we arm people with historical evidence; i.e., knowledge, than asserting that we know the TRUTH about current conditions with no evidence to back it up.

You admit that you think that she most likely got a couple of details wrong. What is disturbing is that you have no problem with her presenting those erroneous details as the SHOCKING TRUTH.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. My only conclussion is that it is happening

and it would be happening if OWS was formed by 500K knitters.

And that is all I have to say to you at this point on this.

[Luminous Animal]

6. As I said over and over again. History reveals to us that the state (at all levels) will collude

to suppress popular movements utilizing propaganda, brutality and murder.

These are established facts.

I have little doubt that the state is doing this now. BUT, unlike Ms. Wolf, I can not and WILL NOT offer up a speculation as "SHOCKING TRUTH". That is the FOX News standard of proof. I reject that standard.

What I can do is educate with historical documentation that the state will collude to suppress a people's movement and hope that people will do whatever they can to protect themselves with that knowledge.

[WillyT]

13. I Know... But... I'm Not Shocked At All... Are You ???

:shrug:

:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

16. I'm shocked that so many DUers will accept someone's opinion as truth.

I don't know why I'm shocked but I am!

[NYC_SKP]

7. This hack Naomi Wolf's story is a fucking DISTRACTION from the OWS effort...

If there's a plot, fine, lets pursue that separately until it's done but every ounce of energy spent on her stupid unsubstantiated story is energy NOT spent on the movement.

As we try to build support, the last thing those on the fence need to hear about is "ooh ooh ooh, FEMA camps and DHS is orchestrating pepper spraying oooh oooh!".

Honestly, it sounds wacky.

Let's get some proof, lets wait for the results of the FOIA requests, show me some documentation, but leave the Huffpost writer Naomi Wolf out of it.

Sheesh.

:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

9. I agree.......

BUT (hehehe!)


That hack Wolf got 200+ recs.

[KoKo]

32. If something could harm the OWS effort, shouldn't it be investigated as a possibility, though?

I thought the attack on Naomi Klein was pretty harsh from Joshua Holland. I even looked up his bio to see if he had some connection with Neo-Cons, I found it so disturbing.

Maybe Klein went over the top but the criticism was also OTT. We know that movements are infiltrated by the Government and we know that OWS is a threat to the Banking Industry and those in the Govt. who allowed Wall Street to get away with crimes. The latest revelations about how the Fed bailed out banks in secret (up in DU Editorials) is but, one example of more "secrets" coming out of what's done behind closed doors.

I'll give Klein a pass on what folks think was hyperbole and unfounded accusations.

:hi:

[DirkGently]

35. She's far from a hack. Her book The Shock Doctrine accurately explains a lot of what OWS is about.

[maddezmom]

39. different Naomi....that is Naomi Klein

[DirkGently]

36. Dupe. (server burp)

[girl gone mad]

8. The National Lawyers Guild believes there is enough evidence..

they have filed FOIA requests.

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

[Luminous Animal]

11. And the point is, until there is proof it's FOX News standards to present assumptions as SHOCKING

TRUTH.

[dennis4868]

12. This is so funny...

DU is so full of people where you don't need iron clad facts to prove something negative for Obama...just has to feel that way and it's good enough...DU is in the toilet these days. :-(

[WillyT]

14. Just Like You Don't Need "Iron Clad Facts" To Feel Good About Him...

DU is a big community... embrace the diversity.

:D

:hi:

[Webster Green]

18. It's in the toilet all right.

Not for the reason you think it is though.

[Webster Green]

22. Wouldn't the "underground" be the ones who challenge the status quo?

Rather than the ones defending it?

[Remember Me]

23. You'd think, wouldn't you?

You know, AFAIC, the only point of contention is whether or not DHS participated in the calls, which I personally doubt - wouldn't be prudent.

So if not, she got that wrong, but gee, let's shoot her, shall we? God knows it's unacceptable for any journalist to get a fact wrong, based on the information from others. We all know that we require iron-clad proof of EVERY statement EVERY journalist EVER makes, no matter what.

Yeah, right. And if we required that, we'd have no news at all because proof doesn't always come for some things EVER, let alone before a story breaks or is reported.

Personally, I think there's ample indication that DHS has enough involvement with PERF, which ADMITS it was on those calls, that anyone who doesn't connect the dots -- here in the Underground -- is simply in lalaland.

[Union Scribe]

34. your web browser stuck or something?

All your posts trash DU or big chunks of DUers, which begs the question...

[AntiFascist]

26. Once the President gets involved, this is how it goes down...

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/dclm/linkedtextchapters/htar2009Ch22.pdf

(2) There are a wide variety of exceptions to the PCA and we teach at the US Army War College that the law essentially gives the President all the authority he needs to employ DOD forces inside the U.S. although there may appropriately be political consequence that would inhibit such employment. The PCA law itself makes provision for the President’s Article II Constitutional authority. ... The most renowned statutory exception is The Insurrection Act (10 USC 331–334) that were modified used primarily for civil disturbances.
b. The President is authorized by the Constitution and Title 10 (10 USC 331–334) to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence by using Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO). After issuing a Cease and Desist Order, the President issues an executive order that directs the Attorney General and the SECDEF to take appropriate steps to disperse insurgents and restore law and order. The Attorney General is then responsible to coordinate the federal response to domestic civil disturbances. The restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act no longer apply to federal troops executing the orders of the President to quell the disturbance in accordance with Rules of the Use of Force (RUF) approved by the DoD General Counsel and the Attorney General.
(1) USNORTHCOM Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 2502 (Civil Disturbance Operations), is the plan for supporting state and local authorities during civil disturbances. This plan serves as the foundation for any CDO operation and standardizes most activities and command relationships. Tasks performed by military forces may include joint patrolling with law enforcement officers; securing key buildings, memorials, intersections and bridges; and acting as a quick reaction force.
(2) The JTF commander, a general officer, coordinates all DOD support with the Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG), see Figure 22–5. DOD will usually establish a JTF headquarters near where the Attorney General’s local representative is based.

[DirkGently]

27. You know what's fun in these "It's not happening & if it is Obama didn't do it" situations?

Can we not all simply agree that *if* DHS *IS* coordinating municipal crackdowns on peaceful protesters -- which, make no mistake Has Yet to Be Proven -- that would be a BAD thing that our respected President should OPPOSE?

Nothing wrong with examining whether it's happening. There is, however, something wrong with hedging one's bets and arguing that it's not happening, AND if it is, Obama's not responsible.

Because the next argument is that if it is happening, and Obama IS responsible, it's (therefore) not a bad thing.

[AntiFascist]

29. Also, when did this become all about Naomi Wolf?

The way Obama supporters often try to steer arguments is interesting.

[DirkGently]

38. Easier to attack the messenger than the message. A la, "Glenn Greenwald automatic unrec."

:rofl:

[Modern_Matthew]

30. Why many continue to kiss the asses of our goverment... I'll never know...

They're all complicit. The burden of proof is now on those who deny the coordination with the federal government.

[Marr]

33. Obama had nothing to do with this horrible action! Unless he did-- in which case, it was reasonable!

I'm noticing several different arguments being advanced by Obama fans. It's reminding me a lot of some of the arguments we heard from Bush fans during that administration, when they'd vigorously deny that the White House had any involvement with a thing, while simultaneously arguing that said policy was right and correct. Eventually, one or the other won out-- but their myth was always defended on both flanks.

[DirkGently]

37. That's why I recommend we leave Obama out of it for now. DHS should NOT be involved in suppressing

OWS, period. If that's not happening, great. But this pattern of "It didn't happen, or if it did, it's not Obama's fault, and if it is, it's actually a good thing" gets no one anywhere.

What matters is what occurred. No one should be arguing the truth or falsity of it based on theoretical future implications for Our President.