Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Shills run interference for Fed,
besieged professor charges
L. Randall Wray, an economics professor whose students tallied $29 trillion in Federal Reserve bailouts, says he and his students are on the receiving end of a campaign to discredit them carried out by Federal Reserve allies.
Wray, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, N.Y.
Wray says Fed allies are misreading the study http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf and trying to play down the Fed's chronic overnight lending on easy terms to banks which for months on end could not or would not function properly.
Aside from accusing the study's authors of rabble rousing, said Wray, critics appear to be sticking with "talking points" rather than focusing on the exessive longterm emergency brorrowing.
Paul breaks with pack, blasts 'martial law' bill
http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/
The GOP presidential candidates have been playing dumb about the detention measure that puts Americans at risk of being held in internment camps on suspicion of ties to terrorism. President Obama is likely to sign the bill this shortly, it has been reported.
Ron Paul however spoke with a reporter about the subject. The story appeared in alternative media.
Mainstream media are remaining silent about the subject, having only given the matter cursory coverage.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
besieged professor charges
L. Randall Wray, an economics professor whose students tallied $29 trillion in Federal Reserve bailouts, says he and his students are on the receiving end of a campaign to discredit them carried out by Federal Reserve allies.
Wray, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, N.Y.
Wray says Fed allies are misreading the study http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf and trying to play down the Fed's chronic overnight lending on easy terms to banks which for months on end could not or would not function properly.
Aside from accusing the study's authors of rabble rousing, said Wray, critics appear to be sticking with "talking points" rather than focusing on the exessive longterm emergency brorrowing.
Paul breaks with pack, blasts 'martial law' bill
http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/
The GOP presidential candidates have been playing dumb about the detention measure that puts Americans at risk of being held in internment camps on suspicion of ties to terrorism. President Obama is likely to sign the bill this shortly, it has been reported.
Ron Paul however spoke with a reporter about the subject. The story appeared in alternative media.
Mainstream media are remaining silent about the subject, having only given the matter cursory coverage.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Endless war on liberty,
Bland Blather reporting
The end of the Iraq war has been informally declared, though Sen. Rand Paul's measure to formally declare it over was defeated. This is WLN News, Bland Blather reporting. I have here a script that was prepared for me but I've decided to depart from it.
[Gasps in background of set of Whole Lotta Nothing News]
I was wondering what Americans think about the fact that so many of their fellow Americans and fellow human beings in Iraq died after it was exposed that the reason for the war was bogus: not only were there no weapons of mass destruction but it was definitively demonstrated that the case for WMDs was hyped up -- or, as they say in Britain, sexed up -- by both American and British authorities cherry-picking so-called facts to create a desired impression.
[Hey!!! Shut him off!!!]
Why was it necessary to continue the war so long once it was determined that there was no WMD threat? Unless, of course, the WMD threat was simply a means to justify a war that Americans had initially been highly skeptical of.
It's now a decade since the attacks of 9/11, and America is suddenly on the brink of a draconian detention law that could easily be abused for political reasons. In fact, the introduction of such a law 10 years after the fact is grounds for suspicion. I and my colleagues in television media have been muzzled on this subject, though we all recognize what a danger it is.
[We're trying to shut it off!!! There's some kind of override!!!]
There are various theories about why such a conspiracy is occurring among mainstream media and the powers that be to throttle public discussion and general awareness of such an important matter. Some observers have noted that the detention measure -- in which the military could pick up Americans in America and detain them indefinitely without trial or disclosure of evidence -- comes just as the Iraq war is ending and Pentagon funding prospects are in decline.
There is considerable confusion about whether President Obama is for or against this measure, with reports that he had threatened veto. On the other hand, the bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Carl Levin, claimed that Obama had actually asked for such powers. However, with the press prevented from covering this matter as a running story, professional reporters aren't doing any digging, it seems.
The Iraq war is over but the endless war with al Qaeda -- or anyone who can make bombs -- means that our basic American liberties need never be fully restored, as Sen. Paul has noted.
[You're going to have to go on the set and physically remove him!!!]
Have to go now.
[Burly men pull Blather off the set.]
[Kill that story Blather was doing on Ron and Rand Paul!!!]
[What happened to him? Did he go off his meds?]
What's wrong with detention measure, by Rand Paul
TRANSCRIPT:
James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”
Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.
The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.
My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.
Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely – without due process or trial – SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.
I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.
If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.
This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.
There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.
Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.
Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:
“Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”
He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive
Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.
As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?
The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.
This is simply not borne out by the facts.
Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.
And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.
Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.
Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.
Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”
Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.
The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.
The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.
The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.
These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.
Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.
But 9/11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.
These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.
A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.
We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.
Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.
No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.
To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.
Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.
The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.
Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.
Paul, of course, voted against the detention measure.
Feinstein explains her detention maneuvering
The following letter appeared on the internet and appears to be credible.
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the detention provisions in the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I appreciate knowing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond.
This year’s defense authorization bill would, among other things, authorize funding for the U.S. Department of Defense. As you know, section 1031 would authorize the U.S. government to detain suspected terrorists until the end of hostilities, and section 1032 would require that certain suspected terrorists connected to al-Qaeda be automatically detained in military custody when apprehended.
Like you, I oppose these provisions. Section 1031 is problematic because it authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. In this democracy, due process is a fundamental right, and it protects us from being locked up by the government without charge. For this reason, I offered an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial or charge. Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment failed by a vote of 45-55.
I was, however, able to reach a compromise with the authors of the defense bill to state that no existing law or authorities to detain suspected terrorists are changed by this section of the bill. While I would have preferred to have restricted the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens without charge, this compromise at least ensures that the bill does not expand the government’s authority in this area.
I also oppose section 1032 of the defense bill, which creates a presumption that individuals associated with al-Qaeda will be held in military custody, as opposed to being processed through the criminal justice system. I disagree with this approach, and believe that the President should be able to hold captured terrorists in the military or the criminal justice systems based on the individual facts and evidence of each case. Accordingly, I offered an amendment to clarify that under section 1032, the presumption of U.S. Armed Forces detention only exists for an individual captured abroad. Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment also failed on a vote of 45-55..." (Final formalities omitted.)
Nevertheless, Feinstein relented and voted for the detention measure.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Bland Blather reporting
The end of the Iraq war has been informally declared, though Sen. Rand Paul's measure to formally declare it over was defeated. This is WLN News, Bland Blather reporting. I have here a script that was prepared for me but I've decided to depart from it.
[Gasps in background of set of Whole Lotta Nothing News]
I was wondering what Americans think about the fact that so many of their fellow Americans and fellow human beings in Iraq died after it was exposed that the reason for the war was bogus: not only were there no weapons of mass destruction but it was definitively demonstrated that the case for WMDs was hyped up -- or, as they say in Britain, sexed up -- by both American and British authorities cherry-picking so-called facts to create a desired impression.
[Hey!!! Shut him off!!!]
Why was it necessary to continue the war so long once it was determined that there was no WMD threat? Unless, of course, the WMD threat was simply a means to justify a war that Americans had initially been highly skeptical of.
It's now a decade since the attacks of 9/11, and America is suddenly on the brink of a draconian detention law that could easily be abused for political reasons. In fact, the introduction of such a law 10 years after the fact is grounds for suspicion. I and my colleagues in television media have been muzzled on this subject, though we all recognize what a danger it is.
[We're trying to shut it off!!! There's some kind of override!!!]
There are various theories about why such a conspiracy is occurring among mainstream media and the powers that be to throttle public discussion and general awareness of such an important matter. Some observers have noted that the detention measure -- in which the military could pick up Americans in America and detain them indefinitely without trial or disclosure of evidence -- comes just as the Iraq war is ending and Pentagon funding prospects are in decline.
There is considerable confusion about whether President Obama is for or against this measure, with reports that he had threatened veto. On the other hand, the bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Carl Levin, claimed that Obama had actually asked for such powers. However, with the press prevented from covering this matter as a running story, professional reporters aren't doing any digging, it seems.
The Iraq war is over but the endless war with al Qaeda -- or anyone who can make bombs -- means that our basic American liberties need never be fully restored, as Sen. Paul has noted.
[You're going to have to go on the set and physically remove him!!!]
Have to go now.
[Burly men pull Blather off the set.]
[Kill that story Blather was doing on Ron and Rand Paul!!!]
[What happened to him? Did he go off his meds?]
What's wrong with detention measure, by Rand Paul
TRANSCRIPT:
James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”
Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.
The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.
My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.
Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely – without due process or trial – SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.
I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.
If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.
This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.
There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.
Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.
Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:
“Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”
He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive
Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.
As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?
The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.
This is simply not borne out by the facts.
Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.
And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.
Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.
Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.
Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”
Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.
The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.
The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.
The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.
These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.
Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.
But 9/11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.
These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.
A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.
We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.
Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.
No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.
To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.
Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.
The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.
Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.
Paul, of course, voted against the detention measure.
Feinstein explains her detention maneuvering
The following letter appeared on the internet and appears to be credible.
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the detention provisions in the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I appreciate knowing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond.
This year’s defense authorization bill would, among other things, authorize funding for the U.S. Department of Defense. As you know, section 1031 would authorize the U.S. government to detain suspected terrorists until the end of hostilities, and section 1032 would require that certain suspected terrorists connected to al-Qaeda be automatically detained in military custody when apprehended.
Like you, I oppose these provisions. Section 1031 is problematic because it authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. In this democracy, due process is a fundamental right, and it protects us from being locked up by the government without charge. For this reason, I offered an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial or charge. Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment failed by a vote of 45-55.
I was, however, able to reach a compromise with the authors of the defense bill to state that no existing law or authorities to detain suspected terrorists are changed by this section of the bill. While I would have preferred to have restricted the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens without charge, this compromise at least ensures that the bill does not expand the government’s authority in this area.
I also oppose section 1032 of the defense bill, which creates a presumption that individuals associated with al-Qaeda will be held in military custody, as opposed to being processed through the criminal justice system. I disagree with this approach, and believe that the President should be able to hold captured terrorists in the military or the criminal justice systems based on the individual facts and evidence of each case. Accordingly, I offered an amendment to clarify that under section 1032, the presumption of U.S. Armed Forces detention only exists for an individual captured abroad. Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment also failed on a vote of 45-55..." (Final formalities omitted.)
Nevertheless, Feinstein relented and voted for the detention measure.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Fed said to have committed
$29 trillion to bank bailouts
How much money was involved in the Federal Reserve bailout of troubled banks? "The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion," is what a new study says. That statement is found in the synopsis of a paper by James Felkerson published by the Levy Institute.
How much money was involved in the Federal Reserve bailout of troubled banks? "The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion," is what a new study says. That statement is found in the synopsis of a paper by James Felkerson published by the Levy Institute.
There have been a number of estimates of the total amount of funding provided by the Federal Reserve to bail out the financial system. For example, Bloomberg recently claimed that the cumulative commitment by the Fed (this includes asset purchases plus lending) was $7.77 trillion. As part of the Ford Foundation project “A Research and Policy Dialogue Project on Improving Governance of the Government Safety Net in Financial Crisis,” Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson have undertaken an examination of the data on the Fed’s bailout of the financial system—the most comprehensive investigation of the raw data to date. This working paper is the first in a series that will report the results of this investigation. The extraordinary scope and magnitude of the recent financial crisis of 2007–09 required an extraordinary response by the Fed in the fulfillment of its lender-of-last-resort function. The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive account of the Fed’s response to the recent financial crisis. It begins with a brief summary of the methodology, then outlines the unconventional facilities and programs aimed at stabilizing the existing financial structure. The paper concludes with a summary of the scope and magnitude of the Fed’s crisis response The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Friday, December 9, 2011
Obama pressures Congress
to curb detention measure
according to an Associated Press report appearing in Politico.
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The Obama administration opposes that feature, along with other items slipped into the National Defense Authorization bill at the last moment.
The editors say they are unmoved by concerns about infringement of liberty as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
The Politico story vanished from a top position in the Google News search engine as this writer worked and almost escaped his notice as a result.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
to curb detention measure
according to an Associated Press report appearing in Politico.
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The Obama administration opposes that feature, along with other items slipped into the National Defense Authorization bill at the last moment.
The editors say they are unmoved by concerns about infringement of liberty as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
The Politico story vanished from a top position in the Google News search engine as this writer worked and almost escaped his notice as a result.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mayfield case spotlights
peril of detention measure
In 2002, Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer and adherent of Islam, was arrested by the FBI and held for two weeks on suspicion of being involved in the Madrid train bombings.
He objected to his detention under the Patriot Act, and once it emerged that an error had been made he eventually won a settlement and an apology from the federal government.
http://www.justiceflorida.com/tags/brandon-mayfield-fingerprint/
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/12/portland_attorney_brandon_mayf.html
http://www.salon.com/2007/10/03/brandon_mayfield/
Had Mayfield been picked up under the McCain-Levin preventive detention measure, it is highly probable that the lawyer would still be sitting in the Guantanamo Bay prison or some other federal internment center. That is because federal authorities would need not present a probable cause for the detention nor show anyone whatever evidence they claimed to have (basically a fingerprint that turned out to be a false positive). Mayfield would not have been permitted to confront his accusers and most of his legal venues would have been stifled.
That this is true is demonstrated by some persons held at Guantanamo for years against whom there is virtually no evidence. However, authorities fear to let anyone go because it's possible that their experience will have angered them so much that they will join al Qaeda, as one or two released captives have done after being tormented during years of custody.
In Mayfield's case, he would very likely have been held indefinitely. Examine the reasoning of hardline columnist Daniel Pipes, who defended the federal government's action in arresting Mayfield:
"Mr. Mayfield's political profile fits that of many disaffected, America-hating terrorists: he strongly opposes the Patriot Act, inveighs against American foreign policy related to Muslim countries, and is 'particularly angered,' according to his brother Kent, by close U.S. relations with Israel. Mr. Mayfield speculates that the Bush administration knew in advance about 9/11 but chose to let the attacks go ahead so as to justify going to war. And on his release from custody, he compared the U.S. federal government to Nazi Germany."
So, the thinking goes, an American who is convinced that the 9/11 attacks were a result of treachery at the federal level or that the U.S. government should not pamper Israel or that the Patriot Act is an assault on the foundations of American liberty [why label it the Patriot Act unless freedom was under assault?] fits the profile of a terrorist. Had Pipes been similarly detained, wouldn't he have been angry enough to invoke the specter of Nazi tyranny?
Also, wrote Pipes, "Someone in Mr. Mayfield's house was in telephone contact with Perouz Sedaghaty (a.k.a. Pete Seda), director of the U.S. office of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a number of whose foreign branches have been designated as terrorist organizations."
Is there something wrong with a man who is embattled being in touch with a lawyer? Or with Mayfield representing a man in a custody dispute who was eventually convicted of terrorism? But, said Pipes, not only was Mayfield a lawyer, he was a Muslim and identified with Muslim ideology.
By such logic, one could say that Pipes, by expressing a neoconservative ideology, by being too trusting of federal power and by being excessively protective of federal cover stories, is demonstrating a pattern consistent with being a flack for 9/11 conspirators and is a candidate for internment.
Even had Pipes made a good case for detaining the lawyer via the Patriot Act, under McCain-Levin, Mayfield's First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech would be held against him as indicating a "pattern" consistent with terrorism. It is unlikely that he, or anyone else, would have been told of the (false) fingerprint match.
Of course, one wonders why Mayfield wasn't quietly put under surveillance rather than seized in a grandstanding public relations ploy. Was the government attempting to intimidate lawyers for terror suspects?
And if lawyers willing to represent terror suspects could be treated in such a way, what is the likely fate of many an internet journalist, anti-Patriot Act blogger or skeptic of the U.S. narrative about the events of 9/11.
peril of detention measure
In 2002, Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer and adherent of Islam, was arrested by the FBI and held for two weeks on suspicion of being involved in the Madrid train bombings.
He objected to his detention under the Patriot Act, and once it emerged that an error had been made he eventually won a settlement and an apology from the federal government.
http://www.justiceflorida.com/tags/brandon-mayfield-fingerprint/
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/12/portland_attorney_brandon_mayf.html
http://www.salon.com/2007/10/03/brandon_mayfield/
Had Mayfield been picked up under the McCain-Levin preventive detention measure, it is highly probable that the lawyer would still be sitting in the Guantanamo Bay prison or some other federal internment center. That is because federal authorities would need not present a probable cause for the detention nor show anyone whatever evidence they claimed to have (basically a fingerprint that turned out to be a false positive). Mayfield would not have been permitted to confront his accusers and most of his legal venues would have been stifled.
That this is true is demonstrated by some persons held at Guantanamo for years against whom there is virtually no evidence. However, authorities fear to let anyone go because it's possible that their experience will have angered them so much that they will join al Qaeda, as one or two released captives have done after being tormented during years of custody.
In Mayfield's case, he would very likely have been held indefinitely. Examine the reasoning of hardline columnist Daniel Pipes, who defended the federal government's action in arresting Mayfield:
"Mr. Mayfield's political profile fits that of many disaffected, America-hating terrorists: he strongly opposes the Patriot Act, inveighs against American foreign policy related to Muslim countries, and is 'particularly angered,' according to his brother Kent, by close U.S. relations with Israel. Mr. Mayfield speculates that the Bush administration knew in advance about 9/11 but chose to let the attacks go ahead so as to justify going to war. And on his release from custody, he compared the U.S. federal government to Nazi Germany."
So, the thinking goes, an American who is convinced that the 9/11 attacks were a result of treachery at the federal level or that the U.S. government should not pamper Israel or that the Patriot Act is an assault on the foundations of American liberty [why label it the Patriot Act unless freedom was under assault?] fits the profile of a terrorist. Had Pipes been similarly detained, wouldn't he have been angry enough to invoke the specter of Nazi tyranny?
Also, wrote Pipes, "Someone in Mr. Mayfield's house was in telephone contact with Perouz Sedaghaty (a.k.a. Pete Seda), director of the U.S. office of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a number of whose foreign branches have been designated as terrorist organizations."
Is there something wrong with a man who is embattled being in touch with a lawyer? Or with Mayfield representing a man in a custody dispute who was eventually convicted of terrorism? But, said Pipes, not only was Mayfield a lawyer, he was a Muslim and identified with Muslim ideology.
By such logic, one could say that Pipes, by expressing a neoconservative ideology, by being too trusting of federal power and by being excessively protective of federal cover stories, is demonstrating a pattern consistent with being a flack for 9/11 conspirators and is a candidate for internment.
Even had Pipes made a good case for detaining the lawyer via the Patriot Act, under McCain-Levin, Mayfield's First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech would be held against him as indicating a "pattern" consistent with terrorism. It is unlikely that he, or anyone else, would have been told of the (false) fingerprint match.
Of course, one wonders why Mayfield wasn't quietly put under surveillance rather than seized in a grandstanding public relations ploy. Was the government attempting to intimidate lawyers for terror suspects?
And if lawyers willing to represent terror suspects could be treated in such a way, what is the likely fate of many an internet journalist, anti-Patriot Act blogger or skeptic of the U.S. narrative about the events of 9/11.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Mainstream media unconcerned
about draconian detention bill
Presidential candidate Ron Paul voiced strong concerns about the
National Defense Authorization act detention provisions during a recent Republican debate, a point duly noted by the American Civil Liberties Union. His son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has been fighting the draconian bill, but those efforts have been largely ignored by mainstream media.
Though Ron Paul is a presidential candidate, reporters evidently have not been following up on his statement, nor have they pressed other presidential candidates about the issue, or if they have, the reports are going unpublished. Mainstream media have been ducking covering the controversy -- which has sparked outrage across the nation -- as a running story. The House has already passed a substantially identical measure.
For example, though Politico reported the Senate vote, the "politics and policy" site has nothing on the political uproar around the country, nothing on the many Americans who support the Pauls, nothing on the outrage coming from the right, left and middle of the road.
The fact that the measure was suddenly sprung on a public kept in the dark and the fact that it solves a problem that does not exist -- U.S. counterterrorism efforts having been effective without such a measure -- indicates that the motive is not what is claimed. What then would be the motive? many wonder.
The Occupy protesters would argue that the mainstream media are owned or controlled by the upper one percent, who may be worrying about protecting their interests over fears of a worldwide economic calamity.
Others would argue that the bill is what the 9/11 conspirators have been aiming for since the "inside job" attacks of a decade ago: to put America under the control of a hidden clique. The behavior of the mainstream media concerning the detention bill is very similar to its behavior concerning the 9/11 coverup.
An example of the reaction:
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams167.htm
The detention power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing, before being presented for a full Senate vote, the ACLU said.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
about draconian detention bill
Presidential candidate Ron Paul voiced strong concerns about the
National Defense Authorization act detention provisions during a recent Republican debate, a point duly noted by the American Civil Liberties Union. His son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has been fighting the draconian bill, but those efforts have been largely ignored by mainstream media.
Though Ron Paul is a presidential candidate, reporters evidently have not been following up on his statement, nor have they pressed other presidential candidates about the issue, or if they have, the reports are going unpublished. Mainstream media have been ducking covering the controversy -- which has sparked outrage across the nation -- as a running story. The House has already passed a substantially identical measure.
For example, though Politico reported the Senate vote, the "politics and policy" site has nothing on the political uproar around the country, nothing on the many Americans who support the Pauls, nothing on the outrage coming from the right, left and middle of the road.
The fact that the measure was suddenly sprung on a public kept in the dark and the fact that it solves a problem that does not exist -- U.S. counterterrorism efforts having been effective without such a measure -- indicates that the motive is not what is claimed. What then would be the motive? many wonder.
The Occupy protesters would argue that the mainstream media are owned or controlled by the upper one percent, who may be worrying about protecting their interests over fears of a worldwide economic calamity.
Others would argue that the bill is what the 9/11 conspirators have been aiming for since the "inside job" attacks of a decade ago: to put America under the control of a hidden clique. The behavior of the mainstream media concerning the detention bill is very similar to its behavior concerning the 9/11 coverup.
An example of the reaction:
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams167.htm
Even supposing the detention bill does not come to be abused, many will wonder why Levin and McCain would give such potent ammunition to "conspiracy theorists." Others will say that the provision needlessly alarms Americans and will promote the activities of private militias, with gun ownership likely to rise nationwide.
The measure is likely to be greeted with skepticism by many Irish Americans, who recall British internment of IRA suspects in the early 1970s. Few, if any, unionists were interned at that time. Reporters and historians have said that internment helped to radicalize much of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland against the British, who originally had been viewed as protectors.
The detention power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing, before being presented for a full Senate vote, the ACLU said.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at Krypto78=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)... You may reach some of Paul Conant's other pages through the sidebar link or at http://paulpages.blogspot.com/
Monday, December 5, 2011
Backer of preventive detention
termed 'good friend of Israel'
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only Sen. Joe Lieberman has received more campaign contributions ($2,005,778) from pro-Israeli political action committees than Sen. Carl Levin ($1,390,594) since 1990. Levin is known as a "good friend of Israel."
Democrat Levin and GOP Senator John McCain promoted an indefinite preventive detention measure that cleared the Senate, which would give the president authority to seize Americans on suspicion of terrorism and intern them, without having to present probable cause or exercise due process of law as outlined in the Constitution. . Lieberman voted in favor of the bill, which declares America a war zone, even though Congress has not declared war.
McCain has endorsed a book purportedly debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Observers would argue that the bold maneuver, coupled with a brownout treatment by mainstream media, demonstrates a conspiracy hiding in plain site.
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has denounced the measure, but his stance has been omitted from most campaign coverage. Though Paul is even with Newt Gingrich in polling, mainstream media treat Gingrich as the "comer" and Paul as a virtual non-entity. The Republican Jewish Committee has assailed Paul as an extremist.
No word from that group on their opinion of McCain and Levin, whose maneuver in other years would have instantly been widely denounced as extremist.
Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States, said Friday that the Obama administration had been strongly supportive of Israel's security needs. Obama has threatened to veto the Senate measure, but that may prove difficult as it is tied to the Defense Authorization Bill.
Many wonder about how anyone would want to give dicatatorial power to the central government for use inside America. Even if the Obama administration resists misuse, what is to prevent successor administrations from consolidating control over America with such a weapon?
Democrats voting for indefinite detention include Begich, Blumenthal, Inouye, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lieberman, Levin, Manchin, Bad Nelson, Pryor, Reed, Stabenow, Whitehouse. Republicans voting against indefinite detention include Collins, Kirk, Lee, Moran, and Rand Paul, who is Ron Paul's son.
Libertarian Party, ACLU blast internment bill
December 2, 2011
WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today regarding the indefinite detention provisions of Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
"The Obama administration has already claimed that the president has the authority to kill Americans overseas, if he believes they are terrorists.
"Now, in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, Congress is trying to (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)give the president power to imprison Americans indefinitely, without charges or respect for habeas corpus, if he claims they are terrorists.
"Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have already joined hands to pass the bill.
"This contempt for our rights is outrageous. Any member of Congress who supports that provision is grossly violating his or her oath to uphold the Constitution.
"If the president thinks you are a terrorist, let him present charges and evidence to a judge. He has no authority to lock you up without any judicial review, just because he and Congress believe he should have unlimited power.
"That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.
"The Libertarian Party opposes terrorism. We also believe our government should stop taking actions that provoke terrorism. We want to end military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries, and we want to repeal the Patriot Act."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
###
Dear ACLU Supporter,
No due process. No trial. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Indefinite military imprisonment based on suspicion alone.
It's all in a bill being secretly negotiated in Congress right now. Help stop it.
Top members of Congress are secretly meeting now to try to figure out how to jam through a dangerous bill before Christmas.
Their main focus? Legislation authorizing this president and all future presidents to order the U.S. military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens — without charging them or putting them on trial.
We need you to take immediate action to prevent our country from becoming a place where the military can throw a person in jail and let him or her waste away without charge or trial.
Let's be clear about what this proposal really is: no due process, no trial, and no proof beyond a reasonable doubt — and indefinite military imprisonment based on suspicion alone.
A handful of senators secretly came up with this outrageous indefinite detention provision and attached it to the National Defense Authorization Act. And an even smaller group of House members forced through the House of Representatives a law for worldwide war, and worldwide imprisonment, in virtually any country where a terrorism suspect lives, even here in America itself.
The House and the Senate are now rushing to come up with a joint version of the bill and ram it through Congress within the next two weeks.
We know Congress is starting to hear from people who are outraged by this proposal. And if we continue to keep the pressure on, we can stop this. But it's going to take all of us.
Contact your members of Congress right now. Urge them to vote against indefinite detention and unlimited worldwide war authority legislation.
The Secretary of Defense, the Directors of the FBI and CIA, and national security experts from both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued against this extreme measure. But, as you read this, secret talks in Congress to force it quickly to final passage continue unabated.
Only a huge public outcry can prevent Congress from crossing a dangerous line that is a direct affront to everything we believe in.
Final action on this bill could come at any moment. Whether you've acted on this issue before or not, we need you to speak up now. Please contact your members of Congress immediately.
With urgency,
Chris Anders, ACLU
Senior Legislative Counsel
termed 'good friend of Israel'
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only Sen. Joe Lieberman has received more campaign contributions ($2,005,778) from pro-Israeli political action committees than Sen. Carl Levin ($1,390,594) since 1990. Levin is known as a "good friend of Israel."
Democrat Levin and GOP Senator John McCain promoted an indefinite preventive detention measure that cleared the Senate, which would give the president authority to seize Americans on suspicion of terrorism and intern them, without having to present probable cause or exercise due process of law as outlined in the Constitution. . Lieberman voted in favor of the bill, which declares America a war zone, even though Congress has not declared war.
McCain has endorsed a book purportedly debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Observers would argue that the bold maneuver, coupled with a brownout treatment by mainstream media, demonstrates a conspiracy hiding in plain site.
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has denounced the measure, but his stance has been omitted from most campaign coverage. Though Paul is even with Newt Gingrich in polling, mainstream media treat Gingrich as the "comer" and Paul as a virtual non-entity. The Republican Jewish Committee has assailed Paul as an extremist.
No word from that group on their opinion of McCain and Levin, whose maneuver in other years would have instantly been widely denounced as extremist.
Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States, said Friday that the Obama administration had been strongly supportive of Israel's security needs. Obama has threatened to veto the Senate measure, but that may prove difficult as it is tied to the Defense Authorization Bill.
Many wonder about how anyone would want to give dicatatorial power to the central government for use inside America. Even if the Obama administration resists misuse, what is to prevent successor administrations from consolidating control over America with such a weapon?
Democrats voting for indefinite detention include Begich, Blumenthal, Inouye, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lieberman, Levin, Manchin, Bad Nelson, Pryor, Reed, Stabenow, Whitehouse. Republicans voting against indefinite detention include Collins, Kirk, Lee, Moran, and Rand Paul, who is Ron Paul's son.
December 2, 2011
WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today regarding the indefinite detention provisions of Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
"The Obama administration has already claimed that the president has the authority to kill Americans overseas, if he believes they are terrorists.
"Now, in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, Congress is trying to (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)give the president power to imprison Americans indefinitely, without charges or respect for habeas corpus, if he claims they are terrorists.
"Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have already joined hands to pass the bill.
"This contempt for our rights is outrageous. Any member of Congress who supports that provision is grossly violating his or her oath to uphold the Constitution.
"If the president thinks you are a terrorist, let him present charges and evidence to a judge. He has no authority to lock you up without any judicial review, just because he and Congress believe he should have unlimited power.
"That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.
"The Libertarian Party opposes terrorism. We also believe our government should stop taking actions that provoke terrorism. We want to end military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries, and we want to repeal the Patriot Act."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
###
Dear ACLU Supporter,
No due process. No trial. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Indefinite military imprisonment based on suspicion alone.
It's all in a bill being secretly negotiated in Congress right now. Help stop it.
Top members of Congress are secretly meeting now to try to figure out how to jam through a dangerous bill before Christmas.
Their main focus? Legislation authorizing this president and all future presidents to order the U.S. military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens — without charging them or putting them on trial.
We need you to take immediate action to prevent our country from becoming a place where the military can throw a person in jail and let him or her waste away without charge or trial.
Let's be clear about what this proposal really is: no due process, no trial, and no proof beyond a reasonable doubt — and indefinite military imprisonment based on suspicion alone.
A handful of senators secretly came up with this outrageous indefinite detention provision and attached it to the National Defense Authorization Act. And an even smaller group of House members forced through the House of Representatives a law for worldwide war, and worldwide imprisonment, in virtually any country where a terrorism suspect lives, even here in America itself.
The House and the Senate are now rushing to come up with a joint version of the bill and ram it through Congress within the next two weeks.
We know Congress is starting to hear from people who are outraged by this proposal. And if we continue to keep the pressure on, we can stop this. But it's going to take all of us.
Contact your members of Congress right now. Urge them to vote against indefinite detention and unlimited worldwide war authority legislation.
The Secretary of Defense, the Directors of the FBI and CIA, and national security experts from both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued against this extreme measure. But, as you read this, secret talks in Congress to force it quickly to final passage continue unabated.
Only a huge public outcry can prevent Congress from crossing a dangerous line that is a direct affront to everything we believe in.
Final action on this bill could come at any moment. Whether you've acted on this issue before or not, we need you to speak up now. Please contact your members of Congress immediately.
With urgency,
Chris Anders, ACLU
Senior Legislative Counsel
Rand Paul letter
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284937/indefinite-detention-and-american-citizens-sen-rand-paul
No comments:
Post a Comment