Navigation

Archive | Terrorism

Terrorizing the Constitution in Boston and Elsewhere

By on April 21, 2013 in Big Brother, Constitution, Terrorism 19

I was several blocks away at a bar when the bombs exploded, having finished my fourth Boston Marathon about an hour earlier. I was fatigued but enjoying the table fellowship of my fellow runners, telling stories, drinking Guinness and thinking all was right in the world. The bombs, by all accounts cowardly planted by two Chechen brothers, tore through that serenity and replaced it with tears, anger and fear.

Two days have now passed since the brothers were neutralized, one dead, the other hospitalized in serious condition. The media gave us a morbidly fascinating window to the action, a real life Running Man, where the bad guys were pursued in house-to-house searches with military precision courtesy of the billions in tax dollars that perfected the security-surveillance state we call America. Michel Foucalt was presciently right; we are living in a Panopticon. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 19

Enemy of the State

By on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Big Brother, Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Government, Military, Terrorism, Uncategorized 10

In a published FOIA request, an Airman stationed in the UK was investigated after a mental breakdown caused by conflicting values of US military’s mission and her own political beliefs. She was found to sympathize with Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks. She had admitted to communicating her political ideas with various organizations known for anti-war/anti-military sentiments on Twitter and to a UK journalist. She also attended the Julian Assange Trial. However, her own admission and tweets revealed that she was never asked to release any intelligence to these groups and denied volunteering any intelligence to any journalist or group. The US Airforce Office of Special Investigations filed a complaint report on matters alleging “Communicating with the Enemy.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 104: Communicating with the Enemy states:

“Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Who is the enemy in this document? Is it Julian Assange? Wikileaks? Journalists? Bloggers? Social media users? Those opposed to an unconstitutional and failed foreign policy? Anti-war organizations? The leaked document does not directly point to any person or organization but acknowledges who the Airman was in contact with and her activities surrounding her political beliefs. But, constitutionally speaking, who gets to determine the enemy?

The Constitution does not provide any structure to determine an enemy. An enemy could be those the US is at war with. Congress has the power to declare war but there is no framework as to what constitutes a declaration of war. In Federalist Paper number 3, it states, “The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 10

Time to Take Down TSA – For Real

By on April 27, 2012 in Terrorism 4

“Time to Take Down TSA” was the Heritage Foundation’s headline. The author, James Carafano, was commenting on a recent study he coauthored for the D.C.-based think-tank. But in typical establishment, inside-the-beltway fashion, his prescription for the Transportation Security Administration would take down nothing. Nor would it restore to the states a constitutional level of federal aviation oversight – which is zero.

Just like politicians who throw buzzwords like “reform” around to pander to constituents, these groups who advocate “rethinking” the TSA have nothing profound to contribute to the discourse. Under such a plan, which involved “redefining” the TSA’s role, no fundamental change would take place in transportation security.

What Carafano and the Heritage Foundation call for is changing the role of the TSA from providing “security” directly, to “making aviation security policy and regulations.” He goes on to suggest that: “Screening responsibility would devolve to the airports, whose security operations would be supervised by a federal security director.”

This is really no different than the various federal agencies charged with waging the war on drugs shifting their focus from direct action to merely writing policy and regulations. In the same way that airports would be responsible to implement the government’s central plan, drug enforcement would be turned over to semi-private agencies which, under the direct supervision of the feds, would continue the very same assault on our civil liberties. At least the current system allows the tyranny and incompetence to be directly associated with government, whereas a more “privatized” system would tend to shift the blame away from the feds and onto others. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 4

Man who Threatend Pelosi in Jail. Obama remains free.

By on April 7, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Terrorism 2

The AP is reporting that the FBI has arrested a California man for making threatening phone calls to Nancy Pelosi.

Several federal officials say the man made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office, reciting her home address and saying if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that was recently enacted.

Meanwhile back at the ranch….

Barack Obama has threatened the lives of millions of people in Iran, and he walks free. ABC News reports that Obama, in backing off the use of nuclear weapons, made “exceptions for Iran and North Korea or any other country which violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”

In other words, Obama to people of Iran: Make sure your criminal leaders do what WE want them to do, or you’ll never see your home again.

The lone wolf is a criminal for threatening the criminal. Sure, I get that. But Obama is a far bigger criminal – and so is Pelosi too. And that’s not even getting into the previous administration’s crimes…

The criminals are running the “justice” system.

Continue Reading 2

‘Resisting’ Is Defined as Violence. Not the ‘Taking’

By on February 28, 2010 in History, Terrorism 0

Newsweek has put together a “Tax Attacks” propaganda piece. The gist of this piece is that Joseph Stack was one of many violent protesters who “believed taxes are unjustified,” and thus reacted with violent actions. Of course, anyone who believes that taxes are unjustified necessarily gets lumped in with all of the mad bombers, shooters, and so-called right-wing extremists from America’s past. From Newsweek:

Though Stack’s actions were extreme, the United States has seen a quiet but violent antitaxation movement grow since the middle of the 20th century. Having little in common with the Revolutionary War-era Boston Tea Partiers, these protesters believe taxes are unjustified, with or without representation, and they may have ties to other antigovernment groups, including the militia movement, the Sovereign Citizen movement, and white-supremacist groups. Mark Pitcavage, a historian of extreme-right-wing movements and the director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have researched the history of violent attacks carried out by members of the tax-protest movement.

Look at the hyperlink in the story (bold is my emphasis): http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/recent-history-of-anti-tax-violence-in-the-us/tax-attacks.html. Isn’t it somewhat twisted that taxation — the act of taking personal property and earnings by force, under the threat of violence, further theft, life destruction, and/or going to the hoosegow — is considered to be the law-abiding action, while the act of resisting the threats of theft and personal destruction is considered to be the “violence?” How many people — outside of radical libertarians and other anti-staters — will ever see what should be so completely obvious to anyone who can understand simple definitions?

Here is a print of our violent, anti-tax ancestors protesting the Stamp Act in 1765.

Continue Reading 0

The President Assassinates US Citizens?

By on January 28, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Terrorism 1

A provocative piece, as usual, from Glenn Greenwald. Definitely worth looking at… (h/t Lew Rockwell)

Here’s an excerpt:

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests.” They’re entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration’s policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges – based solely on the President’s claim that they were Terrorists – produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn’t Obama’s policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind – not imprisoned, but killed – produce at least as much controversy?

Click here to read the rest

Continue Reading 1

The Latest Edict from our “Supreme” Rulers

By on December 22, 2009 in Liberty, Terrorism 2

Writes Lew Rockwell:

The Anti-Federalists predicted that a “Supreme” Court would help pave the way towards tyranny. Now the Nine Creeps have agreed with the Dictator that if he or any of his army of highly paid dependents declares a person to be a suspected enemy combatant (i.e., an enemy of the people), anything can be done to him: he can be kidnapped, incarcerated, tortured, disappeared, etc. with no recourse. This edict has been buried by the minion-media. (Thanks to Eric Garris)

Continue Reading 2

Homeland Security or Homeland Enslavement?

By on December 2, 2009 in Big Brother, Terrorism 0

by Chuck Baldwin

government-thugBy now, most readers are familiar with the story of how a Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, crashed the White House State Dinner last Tuesday evening. President and Mrs. Obama were entertaining Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the first official State Dinner of the new administration. The Salahis were not on the invited guest list, but were still allowed to walk right into the White House. They even had face-to-face conversations with both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Photographs of the Salahis with the President and Vice President have been published in numerous newspapers and on hundreds of web sites.

I wonder if the American people are thinking this episode through? Think of it: in the post-9/11 world, a world that has invented the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), body scanners, retina readers, the Patriot Act, hundreds of laws and regulations restricting the freedoms and liberties of the American people, thousands of cameras photographing our public movements, and satellite spy devices, a couple can walk right into the White House and meet the President and Vice President without being invited!

Is there something wrong with this picture, or what? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Unconstitutional Tribunals

By on November 30, 2009 in Constitution, Terrorism 12

Judge Napolitano does an excellent job in this op-ed explaining the numerous ways in which using military tribunals on foreign soil to try alleged terrorists violates the Constitution.

The casual use of the word “war” has lead to a mentality among the public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war — and thus trigger the panoply of the government’s military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war.

Continue Reading 12

Rand Paul and Military Commissions

By on November 28, 2009 in Elections, Terrorism 53

Ron Paul’s Senate-aspiring son takes some un-libertarian positions which causes controversy among the freedom movement.

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Seems like the self-described constitutionalist Rand should listen to his father, Ron, about the blatantly unconstitutional Military Commissions.

In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)

The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the Executive Branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the president and without the right of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA (National Security Agency). It also gives to the president the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Continue Reading 53