Tag Archives: 1984

FROM BOSTON (where the American Revolution Began) A THREAT AND A WARNING—“WHAT CHANCE WOULD HIS [TRUMP’S] OUTSIDER MOVEMENT REALLY HAVE AGAINST THE FULL RESOURCES OF THE US GOVERNMENT? Demands for Reform will be met with Tanks in the Street, eh?

Trump could win — but not necessarily the White House (Evan Horowitz, Boston Globe, October 21, 2016)

One widening fear is that Trump simply won’t accept defeat, instead doubling down on his talk of a “rigged election,” leading to an uprising against the established political order. But there’s an obvious problem with this approach: It doesn’t lead to victory. What chance would his outsider movement really have against the full resources of the US government? And where’s the money in it?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/21/donald-trump-going-win/W9OJE03yH9FiB9fD5QMKxN/story.html

WHAT CHANCE WOULD HIS OUTSIDER MOVEMENT REALLY HAVE AGAINST THE FULL RESOURCES OF THE US GOVERNMENT?  This sounds like a threat against the people of the United States, to me: QUESTION OUR AUTHORITY, CHALLENGE THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTIONS, AND YOU WILL DIE…. am I right?  Ever so quietly, Mr. Horowitz is telling the American people: if you dare to question HILLARY’S authority, or the legitimacy of HILLARY’S election—then the government of the United States will bring out its tanks and run over you in the streets, right?  Just like Tienamen Square…. NOT so very long ago….like 27 years?

This was a followup to Horowitz’ curiously dated “October 17, 2016” article entitled:

“When you call the Election Rigged, Everyone Loses”

discussing Donald Trump’s comments during the Third Debate, which took place on “October 19, 2016” in which Trump refused to accept, in advance, the results of an election that hadn’t happened yet:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/17/when-you-call-election-rigged-everyone-loses/CxbmV9qmQCIGxNANlhM20J/story.html

I have to say, I just couldn’t disagree more!  When a major political candidate finally acknowledges, in 2016, that there is a possibility that the elections have been “rigged” or at the very least DRAMATICALLY manipulated, he is simply stating a completely obvious and widely known fact.

We need to eschew all convenient lies and accept what Al Gore might call certain “Inconvenient Truths”—elections in America since 2000 have been questionable when seen in the best possible light, but more likely constitute outrageous “continental and oceanic” frauds against the people from coast to coast.

The Boston Globe never (in recent memory) met a Socialist it didn’t like… but it is still disheartening to think that the City of the Sons of Liberty has sunk this low.  This is, quite simply, the diametric opposite of the Spirit of ’76 in Eighteenth Century Boston (and Virginia) which led to the American Revolution, when Patrick Henry famously intoned from the pulpit of St. John’s Church in Richmond:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

A very dear old friend wrote back to me, after I announced that Trump’s position against acceptance had finally convinced me to vote for him, after many months of vacillation and hesitation:

OMG!  Maybe that should be WTF. This is what you got from the last debate?! How utterly depressing.  .  .   .   .   .  If you honestly think this clown would be safe in world politics, I fear for your sanity. I can’t begin to express what a disaster I think he would be as President, except to say that in a million years, I would never have believed I would find myself voting for Hillary, but he made it a necessity. Just one more thing to despise this bloviated windbag and egomaniacal twit!

I don’t necessarily deny that there are clownish and twitty things about Trump, but if he truly stands outside the current governmental-elite system, then he is worth his weight in god: I just couldn’t believe that he really was until October 19, 2016.

And, does being a Clown or a Twit really disqualify anyone from office?  I rather think history is against that.

Trump is often compared to Hitler in exactly this way, and the notion of Hitler as a clown is as old as the Three Stooges’ early production called “Nasty Spy” and Charlie Chaplin’s brilliant “The Great Dictator”—-not to mention later “Springtime for Hitler” and “The Producers”….or a thousand shorter skits involving Monty Python or other British Comedians.

Caricature and ridicule are very socially interesting and ritually powerful, as our dear old professor Dr. Victoria Reifler Bricker hath taught us to say, and understand.

The role of Royal Court Jesters in Royal Courts and the interplay between Kings and Court Jesters is likewise well-known and documented anthropologically and historically everywhere. The Maya God K— whether called Tezcatlipoca or Kakupacal, is iconographically represented as “The Jester God” and he is in fact the chief Deity of Mesoamerican Kings and Rulers, from the ancient Ahauwob of the Peten to the Huey Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan. Does that make them undignified or less royal, or does it inform us of the nature of nobility and royalty? What does it tell us that the words “Sac” or “Iztac” refer to things mythical and imaginary, and otherworldly and royal?

Hitler was obviously an actor who rehearsed a role. So was Ronald Reagan. Recently republished photographs from he 1920s show that Hitler learned his oratorical style and practiced it privately in front of the Camera. Well??? Some of his poses, while learning, were definitely funny. Most actors have to practice before becoming capable of world class, memorable presentations… Many people criticize Trump because he is not an actor—the express and explicit criticism is “he does not know how to act in public” or “he does not know how to act like a President.”

Adolph Hitler did not know how to “Act like a Fuhrer” when he was a painter or a corporal in Kaiser Wilhelm’s Army. Who disputes that?

Every lawyer who appears in Court either “represents” or “acts on behalf of” another—and a lawyer’s acting is not metaphoric, but in fact had better be Oscar winning or else the lawyer loses…. Hillary is a lawyer and she knows how to “act” her role much better than Trump. We expect our rulers to be excellent actors. We accept that they should wear costumes and take positions (i.e. pose artificially) and effectively dance around their enemies.

Congress Assembled “Acts”, as do Courts of Law, and “Leaders” in Parliamentary Politics, so what is surprising that Ritual and Theatre are so intimately linked. “Tragedy” was originally the name for the rituals of Dionysus…. So was Hitler a Tragic Figure or a Comedian? He may have been some of both. Hitler, like Benito Mussolini, was born a common man, not an aristocrat like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Winston Spencer Churchill, who was born at Blenheim Palace, home of the Dukes of Marlborough for three hundred years now.

What seems certain is that, whether you regard him as a clown or a tragedian, Hitler’s “acting” is so memorable that it made an indelible mark on the world, and that, out of the 20th Century, even if Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt are memories consigned to Marx’s old Midden Heap or Dustbin of History…. the name and role of Adolph Hitler may well be remembered with mystery, awe, and fear…. and that is what my old Harvard Linguistics Professor, the late Calvert Watkins, would call “imperishable fame”, or “the immortality of the Gods”….

I think what I really took away from the Third Debate on 19 October 2016 (which Evan Horowitz apparently knew all about on 17 October 2016? to write about it in the Boston Globe?) is that Trump may be enough of a clown to really ACT FOR or REPRESENT me (and 150,000,000-200,000,000 or so) other “traditional Americans” against the current global elite.

For those of us in that category (150,000,000 or so “Traditional Americans”), the past eight years have truly been an abomination marking the final crystallization of life into the future predicted by  Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984.

Clowns stand, throughout the symbolism and iconography of the world, for established orders TURNED UPSIDE DOWN—and THAT is exactly what we need in America today—the Bush-Clinton-Obama Oligarchy MUST be stood on its head and shaken, the course of history must be reversed, and maybe this  possibly over-sexed Orange-haired clown is just the man to do what needs to be done….

GILAD ATZMON: The Most Extraordinary Jewish Writer of Modern Times…..he calls himself a “Hebrew-Speaking Palestinian” and I am very proud to know him…

Controlled Opposition –From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond, Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 1:29PM

Gilad Atzmon

http://www.counterpunch.org

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power.   It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long?  How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic?  Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics?  Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it. that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Jewish Left’s spin particular Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).
See website for complete article licensing information.

“Der Anarch”—Asserting our Sovereign Individuality and Sovereign Citizenship as not only “Anarchen” but also “Ubermenschen” is the only path to resist Totalitarianism in the United States and around the World

You see a lot of insults being heaped these days at the core Constitutional concept of “the sovereign citizen” as a political or philosophical movement these days, as if it were conjured up by a bunch of illiterate hillbillies  who just want to hide their moonshine & pot-liquor from “the feds” and the “revenuers.”  Credible reports from all over the United States suggest that local police are everywhere being taught to watch out for the dangerous “sovereign citizens” who assert their constitutional rights “too often or too loudly” as subversive terrorists.  My perspective on such matters is: MAY THE LORD OUR GOD BLESS, KEEP, AND PROTECT ALL SUBVERSIVE TERRORISTS WHO FIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, JUST AS HE KEPT AND PROTECTED PATRICK HENRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and ANDREW JACKSON BEFORE….

And ever since Liza Mundy published my identity as an “Anarchist” (she left out the “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” modifiers to that label) in the Washington Post on October 6, 2009, I have repeatedly been asked to explain myself—how can I be an “anarchist?”  Doesn’t that mean I just want “chaos?”  Well, up to a point, I will admit that “chaos” to me seems preferable to computer driven and enforced high-tech “order.”  I would rather live in Early Anglo-Saxon or Norse Viking Society or at the edge of the Western Frontier in 18th Century Virginia than in any of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, or Jerry Brown’s Barbara Boxer’s & Dianne Feinstein’s California 2013.

But it happens that living in a “leaderless” society and accepting no man as an arbiter of YOUR OWN DEFINITION of “good and evil” (or going beyond such things) has a very respectable historical pedigree….  Today I just want to celebrate Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Ernst Jünger— http://www.ernst-juenger.org.  

Ernst Jünger was an anti-Nazi German Conservative and Intellectual of the highest calibre and standing.  He lived until the age of 102, from 1895-1998, beating even my grandmother Helen for longevity (she only made it to 101).  

My political philosophy is fundamentally anti-modern and therefore truly “conservative” whereas Naziism, like George H.W. Bush’s & George W. Bush’s Socialist-Corporatism (which includes Obama and the Clintons, by the way), is fundamentally modernist—embracing technology as a means of oppression and control by monitoring.  

No  “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” could possibly tolerate the Department of Homeland Security, the National Defense Authorization Act, or any of the now thousands of related executive orders.  GHW Bush, GW Bush, WJ Clinton, HR Clinton, and BH Obama are all fundamentally students and followers of Stalin, Mao, and perhaps even Hitler. (1) 

I am much more a student and follower of Ernst Jünger.

Jünger was among the forerunners of magical realism—a very broad topic into which I think you could integrate everything from Joss Whedon’s Buffy-the-Vampire Slayer TV Series to Terrance Malick’s films (include “To the Wonder” and “Tree of Life”).  A friend of mine from the Ukraine recently commented that Jünger’s view of life and the current historical trajectory involves the “re-mythologization of the world,” the protection, preservation, and restoration of individual imagination, instinct, intuition as major factors in world politics and society.  

My supplement to this is that all historical interpretations and political philosophies are essentially mythologies informed by more-or-less gross reorderings of the events of individual, local, regional, national, continental, and global existence.  The mythology of American Constitutional Law depends entirely (these days) on the so-called “Civil War” of 1861-1865, except to the degree that it is supplemented by the post-1945 One World Religion of the Taboo Holocaust and the Credal virtues of the United Nations.

Jünger’s vision in The Glass Bees (1957, German title: Gläserne Bienen), of a future in which an overmechanized world threatens individualism, could be seen as a direct critique of Artificial (robotic) Intelligence and even this “Aryan Traditionalism” you’re looking at (which reminds me so much of “The Santa Fe Plateau and New Age Alchemy” of Yosi Taitz, Daylight Chemical, and similar companies….)

Jünger was an entomologist as well as a soldier and writer, a “manly man” but sensitive poet with training in botany and zoology, as well as a soldier, his works in general are infused with tremendous details of the natural world.

One of Jünger’s most important literary contributions was the metahistoric figure of Der Anarch (“the sovereign person”), which evolved from his earlier conception of the Waldgänger, or “Forest Goer”.  Der anarch is Jünger’s answer to the question of survival of individual freedom in a totalitarian world, and it is ten thousand times more relevant today than it was 57 years ago as he was writing.  It is developed primarily through the character of Martin Venator in his novel Eumeswil.   Der Anarch IS not only the original “Sovereign Citizen”, at least the original “post Hitlerian” sovereign citizen, he is also a Nietzschean Ubermensch, with the capacity to retake his sovereignty from tyrants and maintain it, like the Superman, even in the forest, even in the Mountains, even in the Desert.

I totally believe in the sovereignty of each person and I hate the notion that the sovereign citizen has become the object of such ridicule in our society—a terrorist profile in the target of DHS.  What is clear is that we need to reassert our freedom in more articulate and fluent ways.  Fluency is required and intellectual heritage must be asserted because of the intellectual snobbery bred into us and our by the 20th century.  This snobbery led to such atrocious and fraudulent (incomprehensible) disasters as George W. Bush having degrees from both Harvard and Yale (it’s amazing what money can buy) and Obama attending Columbia, Harvard, and (worst of all) actually teaching at the University of Chicago—teaching constitutional law, no less, at MY alma mater as a successor to Michael W. McConnell—a concept which simply shocks and derails me.

Academic snobbery, which L. Frank Baum once ridiculed as a “Wogglebug Education” even after the Wizard’s dispensation of Brains to the Scarecrow was not a factor in the foundation of America, by men whose minds and mental capacities are simply beyond equal anywhere. No, lack of degrees and academic affiliation quite simply didn’t bother the extremely well-educated under-institutionalized Founding Fathers of the USA such as Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin one little bit….and didn’t actually have much of an impact on intellectual or philosophical careers in the 19th century either—consider that Richard Wagner never went to a music conservatory, Charles Darwin dropped out of Medical School and only grudgingly completed a degree in divinity at Cambridge, which he, oddly enough, never really used….and the lack of formal education completed by such legendary U.S. Presidents as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln is a part of every schoolboy’s and schoolgirl’s learning—or at least it used to be before modern education norms set in.

In this same spirit, Ernst Jünger rejected all the titles and honors offered him by Hitler’s Third-Reich, and when assigned as a cultural attachee during the occupation of Paris, chose to hang out with subversive and degenerate artists…  This is the true legacy of a genuine Anarchist, and the world would do well to remember how important the “leaderless” spirit can be when “Obama’s going to change things….Obama’s going to make it happen” as some of the children’s school songs now go….

(a)  Unlike so many modern critics of 20th-21st century totalitarianism, I cannot automatically group Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in the same list as Stalin and his Soviet successors, or Roosevelt and his Keynsian modern American Successors. I think Hitler was in fact much more of an ordinary person than any of these others, but at the same time he had higher and more “humane” [i.e. romantic, not necessarily rational or sensible] ideals than either of the Bushes, the Clintons or Obamas, however grotesquely inept he may have been in achieving, implementing, or realizing those ideals.

CASTRATING THE CONSTITUTION and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TOO! The World Stripped of Rights and Justice: the Bushes & the Clintons, Clarence Thomas & Sonia Sotomayor, Democrat & Republic, Liberal and Conservative, no longer mean anything….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkSkQgnEV-Q
What liberal commentator Rachel Maddow in the above Youtube Video does not want to admit is 
that Obama was selected to be President PRECISELY because he was the ONLY person who could implement the full extent of the Bush boys’ plan for dictatorship in this country.  The first three presidential votes of my life were disastrous denials of reality.  In 1980 and 1984 I voted for the lies of Ronald W. Reagan.  Then I voted for George H.W. Bush against Michael Dukakis in 1988 and I still regard these as one of the worst moral judgments of my life.  The Bushes paved the way for the Mule Obama Presidency by appointing the Vietnam Era Mi Lai Massacre Apologist Mule Colin Powell to ever higher positions of authority in the military, finally to Secretary of State, succeeded by “Auntie Tom” Mule Condoleeza Rice.  Mules are infertile animals, but the Mules in this case are actively castrating the American people and their constitution.  There is nothing uglier in the history of the world than the controlled deception that has been going on for the past 33 years……. ever since (again I am one of those at fault) the election of Ronald W. Reagan as false prophet for an American Restoration…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z48s0-vubUI&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1

“Conspiracy Theories” are widely portrayed in the mainstream media as signs of weak minds or mental illnesss—yet “Conspiracy” means “Breathing Together” and again I ask:

Does Anything Ever Happen in Political Society WITHOUT Conspiracy?   The question is not whether the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last defender of legitimate currency and honest credit to sit in the Oval Office), the bombings of Oklahoma City, 9-11, 7-7 in London, Andreas Breivik’s shooting in Norway, the Batman Shooting in Colorado and Sandy Hook in Connecticut are “conspiracies”–the question is whether the US Government and allied governments are the AUTHORS of those conspiracies or merely the coincidental Beneficiaries….. Anyone who does not believe our constitutional freedoms are under attack by the United States Government is simply not paying attention.

http://unifiedserenity.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/skull-bones-322-georgia-guidestones-erected-3221980-33-yrs-ago/

http://unifiedserenity.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/obama-poised-to-carry-out-hostile-military-takeover-of-us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpfFXux-bg

We as a nation and people are simply too “beaten down” to pay any attention at all; beaten down by the corrupt banks and financing system, beaten down by the corrupt courts and police and the complete evaporation of cultural values and social norms in every field of life.

CONSTITUTIONAL WAR vs. 1984 “Perpetual War”

Congress, originally (in 1787), was supposed to be the successor to Parliament as the highest expression of the Sovereignty of the Anglo-American People.  It seems, over the past 70 years, that Congress has largely abandoned its role as the primary lawmaker in the United States. As noted on this blog recently, Executive Orders have pretty much replaced legislative enactments.  During the 1950s and 60s, the Judiciary was commissioned with implementing the program of desegregation which neither of the directly political branches were willing to impose on the unwilling American people.

But now, as a consequence of all this history, the “legislature” now longer “legislates”–it mostly ratifies bills prepared by bureaucrats or lobbyists.  Debate is almost nugatory, no longer meaningful, and elections seem “rigged” at all levels.  One of the key powers of Congress granted in Article I of the Constitution was the power to declare war, and Congress has done this throughout history—but the last times were in 1941-1942 at the beginning of the Second World War.  

I find myself simply astonished by the following brain-dead (anti-Libertarian, anti-Ron Paul, anti-Constitutional) Republican “Red State” website (http://www.redstate.com/dcacklam/2012/05/16/law-war-security-why-libertarians-are-wrong-about-indefinate-detention/) defense of Indefinite Detention, but I reproduce it here merely to highlight its one key but absolutely fatal flaw—the “War on Terrorism” (like the “War on Drugs”) is an undeclared, unconstitutional war.  It is also a war which is likely to last forever—where there is no Constitutional Declaration of War, there will be no Treaty Ratifying Peace—precisely because the ENEMY DEPENDS ON US FOR ITS EXISTENCE—There can be no Al Qaida, no Terrorist Threat anywhere, that is not nurtured and fostered by the CIA and other elements of the American and “allied” governments.  Long-term terrorism is in essence a fantasy, a very Orwellian Fantasy, just like the “perpetual war” of Eurasia, Eastasia, and Anglo-American “Oceania”: 

I’m sure I’m not alone in having “grown up” on 1984.  In Orwell’s book a very credible “Cold War”-like “perpetual war” consumes what little surplus exists between the economies of London-based Anglo-American Oceania, Bolshevik Eurasia and Sino-Japanese Eastasia, the super-states which emerged from the atomic global war. “The book”, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein, explains how the balance of power is maintained: each state is so strong it cannot be defeated, even with the combined forces of two super-states—despite changing alliances. To hide such ridiculously illogical contradictions, history is  constantly being re-written to explain that the (new) alliance always was so; the populaces accustomed to doublethink accept it.

EXACTLY LIKE THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM, ORWELL’S “FICTIONAL” (or was it Prophetic?) WAR is not fought in Oceanian, Eurasian or Eastasian territory but in the arctic wastes and a disputed zone comprising the sea and land from Tangiers (northern Africa) to Darwin (Australia).  

{{{For those of you with a weak grasp on geography, that includes Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel Syria, the Arabian Peninsula, the site of the USS Cole disaster in 1999, the sites of the U.S. Embassy Attacks in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam in 1998, Somalia, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Southeast Asia including Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia—in other words EVERY major theatre of war since 1945 EXCEPT for Korea, but including BOTH “Stanleyville and Saigon” and Algiers which were sites of major undeclared “hot spots in the cold war” in the 1950s-60s).  I sometimes wonder whether 1984 was actually an INSTRUCTIONAL manual leaked out, and quickly reclassified as a “fictional” work.  The author George Orwell really DID work for BBC Wartime anti-Nazi propaganda in India, after all, and given his circle of friends and contacts he was probably as privy as anyone outside of government could be to Power-Elite’s Vision of their plans for the next 70 years….}}}

At the start of Orwell’s Perpetual War, Oceania and Eastasia are allies combatting Eurasia in northern Africa.

That alliance ends and Oceania allied with Eurasia fights Eastasia, a change which occurred during the “Hate Week” (comparable to the real world “National Brotherhood Week” maybe?) dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party’s perpetual war.  The public are utterly insensitive and blind to the change; in mid-sentence an orator changes the name of the enemy from “Eurasia” to “Eastasia” without pause. When the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed they tear them down—thus the origin of the idiom “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”; later the Party claims to have captured Africa.  

{{{I personally have, for a long time now, suspected that it is no coincidence that we first went to war with Saddam Hussein and a terrorist named Osama bin Laden and then [had elected for us] a New World Order President named Barack Hussein Obama—so that people would have these similar sounding names confused, just as in Orwell’s 1984}}}.

“The book” by Goldstein, a credible name for a New World Order Theorist if ever there was one, explains the design and purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war: the war serves to consume all “surplus” or excess human energy, time, labour and commodities, hence the economy of a super-state cannot (or is not expected to) support economic equality (a high standard of life) for every citizen.

Goldstein also details in characteristic doublespeak an Oceanian strategy of attacking enemy cities with atomic rockets before invasion, yet dismisses it as unfeasible and contrary to the war’s purpose; despite the atomic bombing of cities in the 1950s the super-states stopped such warfare lest it cause disequilibrium among the perfectly balanced and perpetually warring powers and thus bring about the uneconomical, politically undesirable, result of an actual peace.

Even the Perpetual War military technology in Orwell’s 1984 is prophetic in that, although it differs little from that of World War II, strategic bomber airplanes have been largely replaced with an evolved species of Werner von Braun’s Rocket Bombs (not quite the ICBMs of the Cold war, or the ABMs of the Star Wars Dreamtime).  True to the reality of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, helicopters were heavily used as weapons of war (while they didn’t figure in WW2 in any form but prototypes) and surface combat units have been all but replaced by immense and unsinkable Floating Fortresses, island-like contraptions concentrating the firepower of a whole naval task force in a single, semi-mobile platform.  Orwell’s novel describes one such platform anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands, suggesting an Political and Practical “Perpetual War”-perpetuating preference for sea lane interdiction and denial).

In any event: serious students of U.S. History will recognize in the passage below, but see the logical and moral flaws in, the direct comparison to the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865—when the rights of Americans, North and South, were first repressed and began their long decay into the nightmare of what I can only call either “the Brave New World” or “The New Dark Age”—although fans of George H.W. Bush like to call it “The New World Order”:

Law, War & Security – Why libertarians are wrong about ‘Indefinate Detention’

Posted by Dave_A (Diary)
Wednesday, May 16th at 2:56AM EDT
14 Comments
Recommenders: mikeymike143 (Diary), PowerToThePeople (Diary)

We hear complaints on this subject from time to time – in the past it was Bush’s opening Gitmo, the 2006 Military Commissions Act, and now it’s the NDAA & Obama not closing Gitmo…

Supposedly, this is a ‘grave violation’ of people’s rights, and we should all be very, very afraid because ‘It might be us next’…

Predictably enough, it’s usually lefties, extremists, libertarians, and Paul supporters (but I repeat myself on the last one, it seems – as that group encompasses all of the ones preceding) making these claims…

And rather than using the correct terms – such as EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War) or POW, and ‘detention for the duration of hostilities’, they use ‘indefinite detention’ and ‘violation of habeas corpus’ – as if the situation is one of holding every-day civilian criminals indefinitely without trial, rather than holding enemy combatants (some lawful, some very much unlawful) captured while engaging in hostilities against the United States…

So, with that said, here’s the case FOR proper handling of EPWs – or as the L’s call it ‘indefinite detention’:

1) The traditional treatment of captured persons, and specifically the concept of taking prisoners & holding them for the duration of hostilities or until an exchange can be negotiated, is older than the United States – and something we practiced ourselves in every war we have fought.

If it was Constitutional and right to hold British, Mexican, Spanish, German, and Japanese prisoners for the duration of the war-in-question – and to hold captured rebels for the duration of hostilities during the Civil War (despite their holding US Citizenship (the Union never recognized the CSA as a foreign nation) it being legal under the Constitution to try and execute them for treason instead – a decision likely influenced by the mutual possession of prisoners by both sides & the Union’s desire for reconciliation after eventual victory), what has changed to make it suddenly unconstitutional to hold Al Queda and Taliban prisoners in the same manner?

2) There are international agreements on the treatment of captured and retained persons – a subset of what is referred to in the military as ‘Law of Armed Combat’ or ‘Law of Land Warfare’ – that require certain things & prohibit others. Shooting surrendered enemy forces is prohibited, as is torture and various other offenses. <b>So is subjecting captured enemy troops to the capturing nation’s CIVILIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM.</b> Prisoners found to have engaged in unlawful combat/war crimes (through a hearing process spelled out in the aforementioned agreements) are to be tried by <b>military court</b>, NOT civilian court.

3) Of the alternatives, indefinite detention is the only legal way to keep captured enemy forces from returning to the battlefield (that’s why we’ve done it in every other war).

History – including OUR OWN history – shows that when combatants escape or evade capture, they routinely rejoin friendly forces and return to the fight. This isn’t unique to bad-guys – the US military has a good list of medals awarded to troops who escaped from or evaded capture, then returned to friendly lines & re-entered combat. In this war, we have a Marine of Muslim descent, who after being captured in Iraq tricked his captors into releasing him to a neutral Muslim country with promises that he would desert – of course when he got there he immediately went to the US Embassy & returned to the Marines. In addition, there are documented cases of released EPWs returning to the fight against us in this war.

– We can’t shoot them – that’s kind of illegal and immoral (Yes, they’d do it to us, but the price of being good guys is, well, being good)…
– We can’t try them as civilians – they’re not civilians, and it’s illegal.
– Releasing them to a foreign country means they’ll be back in the fight against us as soon as they can find a way home (as a Soldier myself, that’s what I’d do to them if I managed to get captured & released alive (fat chance – which is why anything is preferable to capture in this war, but let’s allow the example))…
– (For Taliban captured in Afghanistan) Turning them over to the Afghans results in them being treated as civilian criminals by the Afghan government, and that results in their being released due to the Afghan rules of evidence being ridiculously too limited.

So that leaves the one thing every single nation has done during a war – lock them up in a POW camp, in military custody (a place like, um, Gitmo) until the war is over…

3) The notion that we are in danger of EPW measures being used against US citizens, on US soil & not engaged in hostilities against the United States, for political or other nefarious purpose is unjustified paranoia. We have been at war for over 10 years now, and it hasn’t happened. Now it’s understandable to hear various revolutionary movements complaining, because at their core you usually find extremists who are willing to levy war against the US to achieve political ends – and who want to make winning that war as hard as possible for the US. But for everyone else, it’s paranoia… Plain and simple…

Personally, I’d say the violent-revolutionary types should be more worried about what we’ll do to them if they actually try to have their revolution – getting captured & held for the duration is the least of worries (compared to being killed by vastly superior pro-US forces, or captured & executed for treason)….

 (http://www.redstate.com/dcacklam/2012/05/16/law-war-security-why-libertarians-are-wrong-about-indefinate-detention/

Understanding the law as it is vs. living in denial (Orly Taitz & Gary Kreep before the Ninth Circuit)

If elected to the United States Senate, I will fight for the enactment of laws which restore power to the people and diminish the power of the United States Government at every possible turn and in every possible way.  I will seek to reform the judiciary, by the abolition of judicial immunity, but also by seeking Congressional override of the cases and rules which have all but closed the Federal Courts to the people of the United States with regard to any questions of real importance.  I have learned by trial-and-error, quite literally, that the judicial system and the laws of the United States now support an oligarchy rather than a democratic-republic, and that in doing so they support what Dwight D. Eisenhower christened the “Military-Industrial Complex”, except that the only industry really left in the United States now is the manufacture of nearly worthless money through “credit” backed only by the bullying threats of the United States Military-Industrial Complex, which has since the end of World War II engaged in a nearly perfect Orwellian constant, continuous war against enemies whose identities are constantly shifting.  At the end of 1984, of course, Winston Smith, aka “6079 Smith W”, “had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”.   It was that love of Big Brother which shaped the world which Aldous Huxley had portrayed in Brave New World, published 18 years before Orwell’s 1984, and it is something very much like Winston’s love of Big Brother which seems to dominate the American media and popular culture lifestyle all over America today.  I, for one, do not love Big Brother or anyone who loves him, although I might forgive and try to educate some of the latter.

To that end I will tell you that even many of those who call themselves Patriots live just as much in denial as Winston Smith did at the end of 1984: they believe that the law is on their side, and that if they just keep trying, they can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and restore democratic values in America without wiping the slate virtually clean.  I demur.  I have been involved in many causes over the past twenty years, some more catastrophic than others.  The only consistent “winner” in this fight I know is among the most modest of leaders, with among the most modest of goals, namely former State Senator and now State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Kalispell, Montana, who lives in the beautiful shadow of the Continental Divide and Glacier National Park.   But I have spent all too much time with one of the most consistent “losers” in the game—and so it was

With more than a little curiosity I tuned in to watch Orly Taitz & Gary Kreep “do their best” before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2, 2011, in Pasadena.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBLA2NdQZoM.  There are many personal, professional, and political reasons for my interest.  As is fairly well known, I had worked with Orly, been represented by Gary against Orly, and long before either of those experiences, I knew the Courtroom because I had worked with Judge Harry Pregerson, as well as Judge Alex Kozinski whenever they sat in Pasadena, during my first actual job in law which was a judicial extern for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals*.  I found the Judges of the Ninth Circuit very high minded and informal to deal with, whether liberal or conservative—even as a humble extern I was invited separately to the homes of Judges Pregerson and Reinhardt (even met Dean Pregerson before he was a U.S. District Judge—I always cannot help but wonder whether Dad still “reviews” his son’s homework—or does dad recuse himself from any appeals from his sons’ cases).

But I also found the subject matter of the Obama eligibility case interesting in 2009, while I was in fact working on it, and my interest has not much diminished, nor has my concern that this country rapidly is going to the dogs.

The arguments of counsel disappointed but did not surprise me.  What disappointed me most was that neither Gary nor Orly gave even a single reason which would have convinced me (if I were still an extern working on the case for one of the Judges) why the Court of Appeals should have granted the Plaintiff’s motion to reverse Judge Carter (when I could have thought of at least a few).

Among the greatest mysteries of 2009 (to me at least) is why Orly failed or refused (I think it was refused) just really and carefully to read Judge Carter’s Order of dismissal.  Because the truth is that Judge Carter’s order was about as positive and a wonderful order as an order granting a Motion to Dismiss could possibly be for a Plaintiff.  Carter gave us a very well-thought out roadmap of how to restructure the complaint, which had been cobbled together EXTREMELY quickly because of Orly’s paranoia—or her very genuine desire and determination to lose the case.

And yes, I still believe that Judge Carter was initially very favorably disposed to the case and very willing to tolerate Orly’s psychologically unfathomable behavior in and relating to Court.  Or at least I believe that Judge Carter was favorably disposed while I was working with Orly to temper her madness—before and until Orly backed Carter into a corner and forced him to clarify his original order of dismissal was WITH prejudice.

Orly was just determined to throw the case. I remain convinced of it.   She was determined to make a hash out of everything she touched so that she could either (a) do what she was planning to do, to destroy the eligibility movement or (b) achieve status as a martyr in her own mind, an enigma in her own time.  Orly never listened to a thing I said or suggested about the case or litigation strategy 99% of the time, but under the rules, a district court order of dismissal not accompanied by a final judgment of dismissal under Rule 58 is always presumed to be without when it is not specified to be with prejudice, or some other rule or circumstance requires such a determination.   I told Orly—and she didn’t care or didn’t listen—or her “orders” were that she not listen.  And so she ranted and raved that Judge Carter was a traitor and that some pimply-faced fresh lawclerk from Perkins Coie was an Obot planted by the President of the United States in Judge Carter’s Court to give the Judge instructions and orders on what to do and how to do it.

If Orly had really wanted even to have a chance to win—she would have listened to me and just carefully reworked the Barnett et al. Complaint—and followed Judge Carter’s instructions—and I think we could have—and either we might have made it to discovery and at least a Motion for Summary Judgment or else the appeal of this case would have been quite different—“if things had been different, well, things would have been different.”

But as it was, the sole question before the Court was whether the Plaintiff’s had injury standing to bring suit.  Gary Kreep all but totally conceded the repeated question that the case was filed too late for his (former client) candidates to have any special standing, and Orly Taitz simply wasted her time saying less than nothing pertinent, trying instead to make an issue of the President’s April 27, 2011 release of a document which was not and because of its timing could not possibly be before the Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, I submit that the ideas I framed and drafted as Orly’s lawclerk were the best in the case (and if elected to the United States Senate I promise to push for the enactment of laws enshrining these ideas as litigation rights in the United States Code): that the unique circumstances of the Presidential eligibility before Court more closely resembled Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing than anything else, in that if taxpayers were not afforded standing to object, then certain clauses of the constitution (among them Article II, Section 1, and the establishment clause of the First Amendment) are left without any advocates for judicial remedy whatsoever, and the Constitution was written to constitute a document of “fundamental law,” not just a series of non-binding resolutions to be followed at political convenience or discretion.

Had I been able to appear before the Ninth Circuit, I would have argued for taxpayer standing together with my firmly held belief that the Constitution expressly grants First Amendment standing to petition the Courts for redress of any and all grievances, and that the Ninth Amendment reservation of rights also accords similar standing to petition for redress of any and all grievances.  The second best line of argument presented to Judge Carter was that concerning the obligation and remedies available to those who took specific oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially Military Officers.

All these issues were before the Court, because I drafted documents which put them before Judge Carter, although he largely ignored them, yet Orly and Gary did not pick up on these details at all.  It is almost as if, in particular Orly, really wanted to lose.

Orly had failed to develop any of the ideas of Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing or First or Ninth Amendment Standing before Judge Carter—before or after she accused him of treason (which I would like to make very clear I repeatedly counseled her NOT to do) and she did not even mention them in her oral argument.  The Court of Appeals Judges had little or nothing to say to Orly or ask her.  They probably knew anything they said would have just encouraged her.  My collaboration with Orly has caused a lot of problems in my life.  That’s still a story that hasn’t been completely told and this is not the place to tell it.

So, just for the historical record, or for a partly egotistical, partly altruistic, attempt to salvage some of the ideas and pass them on for future use in other cases, I attach the two documents I consider to be the “best” of all Orly’s filings in connection with the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama should occupy the White House or not, and yes, I did have something to do with their creation while I was overlooking the Pacific from Suite 4 of the Casa del Mar in San Clemente.  It was a pleasant place where I spent five-and-a-half-to-six of the most pleasant months of my recent life, only five-and-a-half-to-six weeks of which were spent in the professional and personal company of Orly Taitz.   What can I say—I kind of wish she had stayed and been a sane person, but then she just wouldn’t be Orly I guess.   We could have done a lot of things, and had a lot of worthwhile projects and case number 09-cv-00082-DOC was not even close to the most important of the projects we needed to do—although it was the most famous and the only one Orly ever cared about.

The documents in question to which I refer here are:

09-cv-00082-DOC – Flast v Cohen

09-cv-00082-DOC Motion for Leave to File Surreply

09-cv-00082-DOC – Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply 10-01-09

(*There being no such things as judicial “interns” in the Ninth Circuit or CDCA, the job description for a “judicial extern” still  sounds to most folks very much like an “internship”, and J.D. students compete for these positions much in the manner that J.D. recipients compete for post-J.D. “judicial clerkships”)

Immunity—the Darkest Night Cloud on the Law

If criminal penalties are removed, what will deter lawbreaking by political officials?

(updated below – Update II – Update III)

The Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus today perfectly expresses the consensus view of establishment Washington regarding the exemption which political elites should and do enjoy from the rule of law, and, in doing so, she unintentionally highlights — as vividly as possible — the glaring flaw in this mentality.  Marcus reviews the life of Mark Felt, the number 2 FBI official under J. Edgar Hoover who died this week.  Felt is most famous for having been Bob Woodward’s “Deep Throat” source in the Watergate investigation but, as Marcus details, he was also convicted in a 1980 criminal trial for having ordered illegal, warrantless physical searches of the homes of various friends and relatives of 1960s radicals.

Less than 24 hours after Felt was convicted, he (along with an FBI co-defendant) was pardoned by Ronald Reagan, who justified the pardon by citing Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft evaders and then saying, in words obviously relevant now to growing demands for prosecution of Bush officials: 

We can be no less generous to two men who acted on high principle to bring an end to the terrorism that was threatening our nation. . . .

[The men’s convictions] grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country.  The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government.

Marcus quotes Felt’s Special Prosecutor, John Nields, as angrily protesting Reagan’s pardon, pointing out that central to our form of Government is the proposition that our highest political leaders are constrained by the Constitution and the rule of law — a principle Reagan subverted by protecting these criminals.

Like the good, representative establishment Washingtonian that she is, Marcus announces that — when it comes to the growing controversy over whether Bush officials should be investigated and prosecuted for their crimes — she “find[s herself] more in the camp of Reagan than Nields.”  Her reasoning is a perfect distillation of conventional Washington wisdom on this topic:

I understand — I even share — Nields’s anger over the insult to the rule of law. Yet I’m coming to the conclusion that what’s most crucial here is ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated. In the end, that may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.

Leave aside Marcus’ revealing description of government crimes as “mistakes.”  Even on its own terms, even if one accepts her premise that Bush officials broke the law “in pursuit of what they thought was right,” this argument makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is as internally contradictory as an idea can be. 

Along with the desire for just retribution, one of the two principal reasons we impose penalties for violations of the criminal law is deterrence — to provide an incentive for potential lawbreakers torefrain from breaking our laws, rather than deciding that it is beneficial to do so.  Though there is debate about how best to accomplish it and how effective it ultimately is, deterrence of future crimes has been, and remains, a core purpose of the criminal law.  That is about as basic as it gets.  From Paul Robinson, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor, and John Darley, Psychology Professor at Princeton, in “The Role of Deterrence in the Criminal Law“:

For the past several decades, the deterrence of crime has been a centerpiece of criminal law reform. Law-givers have sought to optimize the control of crime by devising a penalty-setting system that assigns criminal punishments of a magnitude sufficient to deter a thinking individual from committing a crime.

Punishment for lawbreaking is precisely how we try to ensure that crimes “never happen again.”  If instead — as Marcus and so many other urge — we hold political leaders harmless when they break the law, if we exempt them from punishment under the criminal law, then what possible reason would they have from refraining from breaking the law in the future?  A principal reason for imposing punishment on lawbreakers is exactly what Marcus says she wants to achieve:  “ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated.”  By telling political leaders that they will not be punished when they break the law, the exact opposite outcome is achieved:  ensuring that this conduct will be repeated.

* * * * *

Just contemplate how stupid and irrational everyone would think a person was being if they wrote an article advancing this argument:

Much more important than punishing murderers or getting caught up in protracted disputes about prior murders is the need to prevent murders from occurring in the future.  Therefore, we ought to abandon our quest to impose punishments on people who get caught having murdered someone.  To expend resources trying to punish murderers is to squander vital resources on the past, to waste energies that could instead be more productively devoted to preventing future murders.

There are too many important challenges we face to waste time bogged down litigating past murders.  Let’s allow murderers to go unpunished so that we can move beyond the past and concentrate instead on the more important priority of minimizing the number of murders in the future.

The argument, of course, is self-refuting.  If we adopt a policy of not punishing murderers, we will obviously not be preventing future murders.  We will be doing the opposite:  ensuring and even encouraging a massive increase in murders, since people will know that they are now free to do it with impunity.  The prime barrier to most crimes — the main deterrent — is the threat of criminal punishment, of a lengthy prison term.  That’s not true of all crimes (the criminal law has had a negligible effect, for instance, on drug usage, and may not deter poverty-motivated crimes), but it’s certainly true of most serious crimes, especially by those with power.  If you abolish that punishment, then you inevitably ensure many more crimes in the future, no matter how many noble efforts you devote towards “making sure it never happens again” — whatever that might mean.

The evidence demonstrating that this is an exact analogy to what Marcus is advocating, an exact analogy to what we’ve generally been doing with political leaders and are doing now, is equally self-evident.  A central observation in Marcus’ column is that the controversies that have now arisen over Bush lawbreaking in the areas of interrogation and surveillance are not new.  As she points out, these are the very same controversies that we’ve been confronting for decades.

That’s exactly right.  The same controversies over government lawbreaking arise over and over.  And why is that?  Because our political leaders keep breaking the law — chronically and deliberately.  And why do they keep doing that?   Because there is no deterrent against it.   Every time they get caught breaking the law, the Ronald Reagans and Ruth Marcuses of the world step in to insist that they should not be punished, that the criminal law is not for elite leaders in political office, that those involved in the noble function of ruling America are too intrinsically well-intentioned to warrant punishment even when they commit crimes, that it’s more important to look forward than back.  

Every time we immunize political leaders from the consequences of their crimes, it’s manipulatively justified in the name of “ensuring that it never happens again.”  And every time, we do exactly the opposite:  we make sure it will happen again.  And it does:  Richard Nixon is pardoned.  J. Edgar Hoover’s lawbreakers are protected.  The Iran-contra criminals are set free and put back into government.  Lewis Libby is spared having to serve even a single day in prison despite multiple felony convictions.  And now it’s time to immunize even those who tortured detainees and spied on Americans in violation of numerous treaties, domestic laws, and the most basic precepts of civilized Western justice.

* * * * *

If someone wants to argue that America is too good and our Washington elite too important to allow our powerful political leaders to be subjected to the indignity of a criminal proceeding, let alone prison, they should argue that.  As warped as that idea is, at least it’s candid and coherent.  It’s the actual animating principle driving most of this. 

But this claim that we have to immunize political leaders from the consequences of their lawbreaking in order to — as Marcus wrote — “ensure that these mistakes are not repeated” is manipulative and Orwellian in the extreme.  It’s contradictory on its face.  It’s just a Beltway buzzphrase, a platitude, completely devoid of specific meaning and designed to do nothing but obfuscate what is really going on.

Whenever you hear that claim being made — that what matters is not punishment, but ensuring that it never happens again — notice that none of the Serious guardians who advocate it ever, ever answer or even acknowledge this question:  other than punishing people for breaking the law, how is it even theoretically possible to ensure it doesn’t happen again in the future?  We already have unambiguous laws in place with substantial penalties for violations.  We already impose disclosure obligations, and substantial oversight duties on the Congress and courts. 

All of these laws and safeguards were blithely disregarded and violated.  Other than making sure that leaders know they will be punished — like all Americans are — when they break the law, how and why does anyone imagine that we can ensure this “never happens again,” especially as we simultaneously affirm — yet again — that political leaders will be exempted from the rule of law if they do it?  What’s the answer to that?

 

UPDATE:  The opening address of Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials is undoubtedly one of the most important speeches of the last century.  It established the basic precepts of Western Justice.  War crimes, Jackson observed, are such that “civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.”  And, contrary to the blatantly self-contradictory claims from today’s Washington elite, he pointed out that the only way to ensure they don’t happen again is through real accountability and punishment:

The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power . . . .

It’s irrelevant whether crimes rise to that same level or are of the same magnitude.  These were principles of justice that were supposed to endure and govern how we conducted ourselves generally, beyond that specific case.  In fact, Justice Louis Brandeis, 20 years earlier, observed that it’s probably more important — not less — to enforce the rule of law when government leaders commit crimes than when ordinary Americans commit them:

In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

We haven’t just forgotten these principles.  We’re deliberately — consciously — choosing to renounce them.

 

UPDATE II:  At Talk Left, Armando points out one other towering, destructive flaw in Marcus’ “logic” — logic which, I want to re-iterate, is worth examining only because it’s the predominant mentality in the Washington establishment.  As Armando writes:

[Marcus] claims her ambivalence stems from “How much can and should government infringe on personal privacy and individual liberties in the name of guarding against risks to public safety? What should be the role of criminal law when government officials overstep permissible bounds in the name of national security?”

The answers to these questions are so obvious that it strikes me again that Ms. Marcus is providing us the question ‘is she an idiot or a malevolent dissembler?’Those questions are answered by the laws we make. This is called democracy Ms. Marcus. The permitted level of government infringement on liberty is that which our laws and Constitution allow. No more. If we wish to give away our freedoms, we do it by lawful means. To grant the Executive Branch the power to determine which laws to follow is precisely what the Founders fought against.

Why does that even need to be pointed out?  We already weighed the competing considerations between freedom and security and then enacted laws which authorized certain behaviors and criminalized others.  If that balance should be altered, the solution — in a society that lives under the rule of law — is for the laws to be changed democratically, not for political leaders to decide at will and in secret that they will break those laws and then argue after the fact that the laws they broke were bad ones.  Political leaders aren’t vested with lawbreaking power.  To the contrary, the Constitution explicitly requires that they “faithfully execute” those laws, not violate them at will.

Isn’t this all so painfully basic?  When the predominant Beltway argument is stripped of euphemisms, it amounts to nothing less than the claim that our political leaders should be — and are — free to break our laws.   And that’s the system we’ve adopted.  It’s why Dick Cheney feels free to smugly admit in public that he authorized these war crimes.   He knows that the Ruth Marcuses of the world will intervene to defend him.  Still, it’s one thing to argue that American political leaders should have the power to commit crimes. It’s another thing entirely to advance the insultingly deceitful and Orwellian claim that doing so is necessary so we can focus on preventing similar lawbreaking in the future.

 

UPDATE III:  This Kos diarist makes a good case that the most effective way Obama could ensure meaningful investigations and prosecutions is to appoint someone like Patrick Fitzgerald — or, even better, Fitzgerald himself — to the role of Special Prosecutor, and vest him with all the power he needs to undertake a real investigation, wherever it might lead.  That’s the same recommendation I made several times with Bill Moyers last week, in this clip.

That option has the advantage of insulating Obama from responsibility for overseeing any investigations and ensuring that it is treated purely as a criminal, not a political, matter.  As a practical reality, the largest barrier to any route to prosecution — including this one — is that the Congressional Democratic leadership was complicit, to varying degrees, in the illegal programs.  But of all the various ways investigations could be pursued, the appointment of a fearless prosecutor with a proven record of independence (and who is a Republican to boot) would be the most effective.

— Glenn Greenwald