I'm on holiday with no internet access.

(I'll be here:

...until Jan 1st)

 Happy Christmas.

May 2012 bring real change.

Elites Launch Another Dystopian Mindbender

 

Before It's News

Zen Gardner

How's that for cognitive dissonance? After outright media blackout, ridicule, and violent police oppression, this mind-bending "honor" arises. Smell anything fishy here?

AFP - Time magazine named the collective 'protester' around the world as its person of the year Wednesday, citing the change brought by street demonstrations from Arab countries to New York.

The shared honor for protesters beat the traditional individual contenders, who included Admiral William McCraven, commander of the US mission to kill Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

'There's this contagion of protest,' managing editor Richard Stengel said on NBC television. 'These are folks who are changing history already and they will change history in the future.' Source

When the PTBs honor demonstrators on one of their flagship publications, and globalist Richard Stengel publicly endorses these "folks changing history", you know you're being "teed up".

You also now know that, yes, they were behind much of this international movement, which has worked very nicely to dismantle one government after another in their march toward World War 3 and world domination.

Or so they hope.

Is this a change of strategy?  Why?

Some Reasons

• If you can't stop it, steer it. Manipulate the message to meet your needs. In this case, appear to be the "good guy" and proponent of freedom for the underdog. Old saw, but works.
• Encourage more public dissent. Why? The game's changed. Thanks to our traitorous government, with the recent draconian developments in not only warrantless detainment but internet intrusion and soon free range censorship, these wicked minions appear to be in a rush to the goal line. And they'd no doubt like to give these news powers a test drive.
• Timing. For some reason they feel the urgency to put the clamps on hard, and quickly. Is something coming down the pike?
• Fear. Do they sense a real awakening amidst their manipulating and want to seal the pot before it boils over? You know what that will only do. So, is that their intention?

The Dystopian Freedom "Front"

At the very least, to so-called honor the "demonstrator" while telling your robocops to spray mace in their faces and club and arrest them is along the lines of Obama's Nobel Peace prize. Only screwier.  For these self-appointed, self-righteous media moguls to completely about-face is another effort to mess with our heads.

We get it, but the rest of the world is being led by the nose down a path to complete chaos.

This is similar to the whacked-out power freak Hillary going around preaching human rights and democracy, while planting subversives and handing out weapons like Halloween candy. For some hypnotic reason, the masses will fall for these false fronts of words and erudite rhetoric even while their eyes tell them the opposite. Nothing like a regular dose of cognitive dissonance to keep the masses mindnumbed.

But such is our Orwellian dystopia.

Read more

How Zionism infiltrated the US

 

Veterans Today

Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky

Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish-American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials.

In this exclusive interview with Press TV’s Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations.

He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC (American- Israeli Public Affairs Committee) lobby, and how President Obama would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.

Press TV: In 1982, Mr. Bruzonsky, you authored the Paris Declaration - a breakthrough event that greatly contributed to political developments of the time. Please tell us about that.

Bruzonsky: In the 1980s, in a sense, a lot of us knew there was this political cancer; it was very bad, it was eating up the patient and needed to be dealt with and cured. I was in Paris sitting in a hotel room, a big event in my life, with four very important people – I was there to do the work and write the document.

These people were the former president of France – Pierre Mendis France; the founder of the World Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress – Nahum Goldman; his successor, who was the only Jewish leader in America who had ever been president of B’nai Brith and World Jewish Congress and Secretary of Commerce. The man who inspired it was the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Isam Sartawi, the head of the PLO in Europe. They signed this document called the Paris Declaration, I wrote it and it was on the entire front page of Le Monde newspaper; Arafat responded and that was on the front page also.

But then we ran out of steam. The organizations that had founded were not willing to even entertain a discussion on what they had signed; they disassociated themselves from the people who founded their own organizations.

So then the Donahue show asked me to be on their show. The Donahue TV show was the only talk show in America at that time, there was no other competition and I went on it after no other Jewish leaders would accept to go on the program. The timing of the show was pre-intifada, pre-apartheid and there were very few Israeli settlements on Palestine occupied land at the time and the discussion was all about how to bring peace to the region. The two-state solution (with ‘Solution’ emphasized) was in fact a possible solution – it wasn’t going to be totally fair, the Palestinians were going to get a small piece of territory compared to their homeland, but at least there was a lot of support from political people to make it happen. That world is gone. The two-state solution is now dead with the possible exception that you would have to roll back a tremendous number of things that have happened; that’s not going to happen.

The reason that is not going to happen is not because President Obama is not a smart man, not because he doesn’t know that cancer has gotten a lot worse; he knows all that.

He also knows that politically he is totally blocked. There is no way in the world he can come up against the Israeli Jewish lobby and their great group of institutions, personalities and foundations – no way. 

He knows it.

So he continues to talk the language of two-state solution, but that’s largely to keep Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) from being totally discredited.

Read more

Growing Hunger and Homelessness in America

BobTuskin.com

Stephen Lendman

Millions of Americans now endure protracted Depression conditions at a time half the population is either poor or low income. Long-term unemployment is unprecedented, and federal aid is being cut, not increased.

Two new reports highlight enormous depravation levels and human suffering, getting little or no major media attention. Many affected families used to be middle class. They’re now low-income or impoverished by unemployment or spotty low-pay part-time work.

Most important is that much worse conditions are coming during America’s greatest ever Depression to last years and devastate many more households than already.

In December, the US Conference on Mayors published its “Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities.”

It covered 29 cities. The period between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2011 was examined. Key findings reflected dire nationwide conditions.

Only four cities said emergency help wasn’t requested in the past year. In two cities, conditions were unchanged. Two others said they improved. Overall, aid requests increased by 15.5%.

Among those needing it, 51% were in families, 26% were employed, 19% were elderly, and 11% homeless. Causes cited included unemployment, poverty, low wages, and high housing costs.

Cities reported an average 10% increase in the amount of food distributed. Over 70% of them reported emergency food purchase budget increases. Nonetheless, 27% of people needing it didn’t get it. Demand’s fast outstripping supply and/or the willingness of cities to help during hard times.

Under tight budget conditions, 86% of emergency kitchens and food pantries reduced the quantity of food distributed per visit to accommodate larger numbers. Moreover, demand is so heavy that people are now turned away.

No city surveyed expects emergency requests to decline next year. Nearly all, in fact, expect increases given dire economic conditions.

Read more

TSA - 10 Years Of True Terror And Counting

 

Jeff Rense qnd Jonathan Emord discuss the total waste of the TSA charade.The TSA has just had its 10th anniversary, caught no-one, and spent billions.

Is the TSA's purpose only to humiliate?

------------------

See also: TSA screenings aren't just for airports anymore

BRIDES BOYCOTT AHAVA AND SODASTREAM

On Saturday, December 10, International Human Rights Day, a flash mob took over the wedding registry section of the Bed Bath & Beyond in Larkspur, Calif. The flash mob consisted of a mock wedding in which four brides committed to boycott illegal Israeli settlement products, namely Ahava cosmetics and SodaStream home carbonation systems, and local Reverend Dr. Walt Davis pronounced the brides "married to a life of peace and justice." The Justice Voices choir sung a parody of "Ode to Joy" that asked Bed Bath & Beyond to deshelve these products. Store employees asked the flash mobbers to leave the store and called the police. No arrests were made.

Caroling continued outside the store where the group received positive feedback from holiday shoppers.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/bed-bath-beyond-flash-mob-stop-selling-i...

Report Slams Dutch Catholic Church Over Sex Abuse

NPR

As many as 20,000 children endured sexual abuse at Dutch Catholic institutions over the past 65 years, and church officials failed to adequately address it or help the victims, according to a long-awaited investigative report. Based on a survey of 34,000 people, the report estimated that 1 in 10 Dutch children suffered some form of sexual abuse — a figure that rose to 1 in 5 among children who spent part of their youth in an institution such as a boarding school or children's home, whether Catholic or not. "Sexual abuse of minors," it said bluntly, "occurs widely in Dutch society." 

The abuse ranged from "unwanted sexual advances" to rape, and abusers numbered in the hundreds and included priests, brothers and lay people who worked in religious orders and congregations. The number of victims who suffered abuse in church institutions likely lies somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, according to the probe, which went back as far as 1945. The commission behind the investigation was set up last year by the Catholic Church under the leadership of a former government minister, Wim Deetman, a Protestant, who said there could be no doubt church leaders knew of the problem. 

"The idea that people did not know there was a risk ... is untenable," he told a news conference. 

Read more

Spirals and Circles: The Art of Stu Jenks

endicott-studio.com

“The Circle. The Spiral. Universal symbols from all cultures, representing everything from festive pinwheels to the internal journey of the soul. The Spiral: A movement down into despair, a motion up into joy, a sojourn inward and back out again. The Circle: A path of completion, a new beginning, a continuing sense of union. For the past number of years I have been exploring in my photography these two symbols, creating them in sand, in flame, in water, in time. Each time I learn a little more about the space I’m in, both emotionally internal to my experiences, and physically external to my environment. This series is as much about the exploration of my spiritual reality, as it is about an appreciation of form, shape, and design.”

-- Stu Jenks

 

 

 

New Photos Released of Iraq Atrocity, With Documents and Video

 

Really shocking stuff. be warned. These are the results of war spawned from the minds of psychopaths. Result? More psychopaths, sociopaths and irretrievably damaged young men. This comment from ICH sums it up perfectly:

thirdworlder: "nope..aint looking at those photos...so can someone please fill me in on what happened to this feeling and honorable guy that is PFC John Needham.

thx
p/s I have to wonder what atrocities these other savage animals are yet to fufill once they are on American soil. 

Kratoklastes: He's dead. Died in Feb 2010 after beating his girlfriend so badly she died from her injuries. His mind had been FUBAR since his return from Iraq.

The 'savage animals' you mention are going to be a real problem once they leave the military and join 'law enforcement'; those who don't go the 'merc' route will be on SWAT teams, because once you get a Jones for killing, you can't do anything else.

Needham's "problem" was that he was human. Humans don't get a Jones for killing. As a former green-clad sociopath myself, I can tell you that there comes a time when you look into the abyss: if you like what you see then you're not human. It's seldom a moment of indecision: you either hate what you're becoming, or you love it. If you love it you're not human.

Those who, on looking into the abyss, are horrified, owe it to their future selves to quit IMMEDIATELY (most don't though: the paycheck plus the cameraderie are powerful incentives to try to 'go along'.)

I have several comrades from the 1980s who loved what they became; were you to meet them at a barbeque you would see them as slightly-intense but fun guys. But if you flicked their switch - and it could be something as trivial as a joke they felt 'took the piss' at them - they would follow you home and beat you to death.

There are HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of those guys walking the streets; they're one wrong look away from maiming or murdering some poor bastard who wasn't looking for trouble.

And there are two MILLION John Needhams - guys who have seen the beast, and are never the same. No amount of counselling or psychotropics will save them: it is the 'long tail' of the enlistment process (along with TBI). 

---------------

War Is A Crime 

David Swanson

Every American should read this letter:

December 18, 2007
To:   Mr. Randy Waddle, Assistant Inspector General, Ft Carson, Colorado
CC:  LTC John Shawkins, Inspector General, Ft Carson, Colorado
        Major General Mark Graham, Commanding Officer, Ft Carson, Colorado
        Major Haytham Faraj, USMC, Camp Pendleton, California
        Lt General Stanley Greene, US Army Inspector General
Subject: Formal Notification of War Atrocities and Crimes Committed by Personnel, B Company, 2-12, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division in Iraq

 -----------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Waddle,

My name is John Needham.  I am a member of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry division, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, (BCo,2-12INF,2BCT,2ID .  I deployed with my unit to Iraq from October 2006 until October 2007 when I was medically evacuated for physical and mental injuries that I suffered during my deployment.  The purpose of my letter is to report what I believe to be war crimes and violation of the laws of armed conflict that I personally witnesses while deployed in Iraq.

Upon arriving in Iraq in October of 2006 my unit was assigned to the ¼ Cavalry unit at Camp Prosperity.  In March of 2007 I was sent back to my unit, B Company 2-12 at Camp Falcon.  It was at Camp Falcon that I observed and was forced to participate in ugly and inhumane acts against the Iraqi citizens in our area of responsibilities.  Below I list some of the incidents that took place.

In March of 2007, I witnessed SSG Platt shoot and wound an Iraqi national without cause of provocation.  The Staff Sergeant said that he suspected the Iraqi be a “trigger” man.  We had not been attacked and we found no evidence on the man to support the suspicion.  As the Iraqi lay bleeding on the ground, PVT Smith requested to administer first aid to the Iraqi.  SSgt Platt said no and “let him bleed out.”  When SSG Platt walked away, Pvt Smith and PVT Mullins went to the Iraqi, dragged him to an alley, and applied first aid.  They then drove him to the cache for further treatment.

In June of 2007 1SG Spry caused an Iraqi male to be stopped, questioned, detained, and killed.  We had no evidence that the Iraqi was an insurgent or terrorist.  In any event when we stopped he did not pose a threat.  Although I did not personally witness the killing, I did observe 1sg Spry dismembering the body and parading of it while it was tied to the hood of a Humvee around the Muhalla neighborhood while the interpreter blared out warnings in Arabic over the loud speaker.  I have a photo that shows 1SG Spry removing the victim’s brains.

On another occasion an Iraqi male was stopped by a team led by Sgt Rogers as he walked down an alleyway.  The Iraqi was detained and questioned then with his hands tied behind his back, SGT Rogers skinned his face.
1ST Spry shot a young Iraqi teenager who was about 16 years old.  The shooting was unprovoked and the Iraqi posed no threat to the unit.  He was merely riding his bicycle past an ambush site.  When I arrived on the scene I observed 1SGT Spry along with SSG Platt dismember the boy’s body.

In August of 2007, I responded to radio call from SGT Rogers reporting that he had just shot an Iraqi who was trying to enter through a hole that the platoon had blown in a wall to allow them observation of the area during a security patrol.  When I arrived, I saw a one armed man who was still alive lying on a barricade.  The man was about 30 years old.   He had an old Ruger pistol hanging from his thumb.  It was obvious to me that the pistol was placed there because of the way it hung from his thumb.  The Iraqi was still alive when I arrived.  I saw SGT Rogers shoot him twice in the back with hollow point bullets.  The Iraqi was still moving.  I was asking why they shot him again when I heard Sgt Hoskins say “he’s moving, he’s still alive.”  SPEC Hoskins then moved to the Iraqi and shot him in the back of the head.  SSG Platt and SGT Rogers were visibly excited about the kill.  I saw them pull the Iraqi’s brains out as they placed him in the body bag. 

CPT Kirsey must have learned something about this incident because he was very upset and admonished the NCOs involved.
I have seen and heard 1SGT Spry brag about killing dogs.  He kept a running count.  At last count I remember he was boasting of having killed 80 dogs.
On many occasions I observed SGT Temples, SSG Platt and SGT Rogers beat and abuse Iraqi teenagers, some as young as 14, without cause.  They would walk into a house near areas where they suspected we had received sniper fire, then detain and beat the kids.

I have photos that support my allegations.  I also have numerous other photos on a laptop PC that the unit illegally seized from me.  I have requested its return but they have refused.

My experiences have taken a terrible toll on me.  I suffer from PTSD and depression.  I had no way to stop the ugly actions of my unit.  When I refused to participate they began to abuse and harass me.  I am still in treatment at the Balboa Naval hospital.  I respectfully request that you investigate these matters, that you protect my safety by reassigning me to a different unit that is not located at Fort Carson, that you return my PC or, at least, seize it to protect the evidence on it, and that you issue a military protective order to prohibit the offending members of my unit from harassing, retaliating, or contacting me.

I have some photographs and some supporting documentation to these allegations.

Respectfully,

PFC John Needham
US Army
 

And every American should view these photographs (warning, extremely revolting).

And then watch this superb video to learn from John Needham's father what became of him:

On the Dark Side in Al Doura - A Soldier in the Shadows from Pulse TV & Maverick Media on Vimeo.

WARNING: Graphic and disturbing photos between 38:47 and 40:00.

VIDEO DESCRIPTION:

U.S. Army Ranger John Needham, who was awarded two purple hearts and three medals for heroism, wrote to military authorities in 2007 reporting war crimes that he witnessed being committed by his own command and fellow soldiers in Al Doura, Iraq. His charges were supported by atrocity photos which, in the public interest, are now released in this video. John paid a terrible price for his opposition to these acts. His story is tragic.

CBS reported obtaining an Army document from the Criminal Investigation Command suggestive of an investigation into these war crimes allegations. The Army's conclusion was that the "offense of War Crimes did not occur." However, CBS also stated that the report was “redacted and incomplete; 111 pages were withheld.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-57323277/war-damaged-vet-kills-girlfriend-ptsd-to-blame/?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo

Salon covered this story too:

 http://www.salon.com/2009/02/12/coming_home_three/

Thanks to Cindy Piester for the excellent video and all of this information.

Update -

Casualties of War

Pfc. John Needham, son and grandson of military men, joined the U.S. Army in 2006 with “the whole goal of giving your life for somebody else”? His comrades?and in Iraq he was awarded the Purple Heart. But he suffered depression and excruciating back pain, crippling post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction to various drugs and vodka. Before enlisting, he had never touched a drink. In 2008 he considered suicide; and in a fight with his drug-addicted former girlfriend, he battered her with his fists. She died in the hospital. He remembered nothing.

Private Needham had fallen apart, he said, because he had witnessed “war crimes”; and when he reported them, his comrades mocked him. According to his letter in 2007 to Army officials, members of his company shot Iraqis without provocation. A sergeant killed one, removed the man’s brain, strapped the corpse to the humvee hood and paraded it through town blaring warnings in Arabic. An investigation found no crimes.

In February 2010, John Needham died of a drug overdose after three operations on his back. Salon.com and CBS’s “48 Hour Mystery” have told his story. His father, a Vietnam veteran, will tell it again this month when he reads the text of his son’s “war crimes” letter at a Human Rights Day observance in Los Angeles. The father says the Army failed his son. He is right. John and his girlfriend are both casualties of these wars. Hundreds of unknown John Needhams are coming home. This nation owes them a more supportive welcome

Founder Of Internet Fears 'Unprecedented' Web Censorship

Fox News

Legendary computer scientist Vint Cerf -- widely hailed as one of the founders of the Internet itself -- came out against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) on Thursday, joining a coalition of most of the Internet's major sites that are attempting to foil the bill.

SOPA was proposed to help end online copyright infringement, an issue the Motion Picture Association of America and the recording industry have long complained about. The House on Friday continued to debate the bill, which would require service providers to take action against "foreign infringing websites" that post stolen content. Cerf argued that it would put harsh demands on most websites -- and could lead to massive Internet censorship.

"Requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented 'censorship' of the Web," Cerf wrote in a letter to Chairman Lamar Smith that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) presented to the panel Thursday. CNET posted the full text of the letter to its site late Thursday night.

"I continue to have concerns regarding the efficacy and wisdom of this legislation," he wrote, noting that he joined the many Internet and cybersecurity experts that have already expressed concern about certain provisions within the original version of the SOPA bill.

Read more

Psssst France: Here Is Why You May Want To Cool It With The Britain Bashing - The UK's 950% Debt To GDP

Zero Hedge

While certainly humorous, entertaining and very, very childish, the recent war of words between France and Britain has the potential to become the worst thing to ever happen to Europe. Actually, make that the world and modern civilization. Why? Because while we sympathize with England, and are stunned by the immature petulant response from France and its head banker Christian Noyer to the threat of an imminent S&P downgrade of its overblown AAA rating, the truth is that France is actually 100% correct in telling the world to shift its attention from France and to Britain. So why is this bad. 

Because as the chart below shows, if there is anything the global financial system needs, is for the rating agencies, bond vigilantes, and lastly, general public itself, to realize that the UK's consolidated debt (non-financial, financial, government and household) to GDP is... just under 1000%. That's right: the UK debt, when one adds to its more tenable sovereign debt tranche all the other debt carried on UK books (and thus making the transfer of private debt to the public balance sheet impossible), is nearly ten times greater than the country's GDP.

Read more

Psychologists explain 9/11 denial and Cognitive Dissonance

Alan Hart - Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

Former BBC and ITN correspondent Alan Hart delivers a powerful speech on why Zionism is not only the enemy of the Jews, but of humankind.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.

H/T  http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com

Accusing Iran of 9/11 echoes Iraq scenario'

Are peoeple going to fall for it again, just like they did in Iraq?

______________

Tahrir Square Dec 17 2011 - Military brutality

With the blessing of the US....

------------------

Three myths about the detention bill

This article is extremely important for everyone to read, especially Americans.

------------------- 

Salon

Glenn Greenwald

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.”  The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF  ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:

Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.

It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted” so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals, despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF. That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 – i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are “associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by  Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one)  to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).

Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.

UPDATE: There’s an interview with me in Harper’s today regarding American justice and With Liberty and Justice for Some.

Coming soon: Ubiquitous surveillance from Big Brother's wayback machine

 

It's happening folks. They are desperate to roll this out as soon as they can...

----------------

Network World

Storage, search technology will enable surveillance on suspects before they became suspects

As the price of digital storage drops and the technology to tap electronic communication improves, authoritarian governments will soon be able to perform retroactive surveillance on anyone within their borders, according to a Brookings Institute report. 

These regimes will store every phone call, instant message, email, social media interaction, text message, movements of people and vehicles and public surveillance video and mine it at their leisure, according to "Recording Everything: Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Government," written by John Villaseno, a senior fellow at Brookings and a professor of electrical engineering at UCLA. 

"For example, if an anti-regime demonstrator previously unknown to security services is arrested, it will be possible to go back in time to scrutinize the demonstrator's phone conversations, automobile travels, and the people he or she met in the months and even years leading up to the arrest," the report says. 

"These enormous databases of captured information will create what amounts to a surveillance time machine. ... This will fundamentally change the dynamics of dissent, insurgency and revolution," the report says. 

Villaseno draws on knowledge gained from recent overthrows of such authoritarian regimes to support his argument that such a scenario is not just possible but likely. He notes that when the government of Libya fell, insurgents found equipment that had captured 30 million to 40 million minutes of phone conversations per month and enabled the government to read activist emails. There have been reports that the government of Syria wants to build communications intercepts as well, he says.

The report notes that technologies needed to capture, store and analyze these mountains of data are built for legitimate business purposes by reputable vendors, citing Blue Coat, Cisco, Huawei, NetApp, Qosmos (France) and Utimaco (Germany). 

Noting that an iPod classic can store up to 40,000 songs, 200 hours of video or 25,000 photos, Villaseno concludes that ubiquitous surveillance will eventually crop up. "When that much information can be held in the palm of a hand, the prospect that an authoritarian government could archive the entire life of a nation no longer seems impossible. Declining storage costs will make such monitoring not only possible, but likely," the report says. 

Key to this possibility is the dramatic drop in the cost of storage, which cost $85,000 per gigabyte in 1984 and costs 5 cents per gigabyte today.

The storage needed for different types of data varies widely. Data to pinpoint a location within 15 feet takes up 75 bits. Storing that data for 1 million people taken at five-minute intervals for a year would take up less than a terabyte and cost a bit more than $50.

In 2015 the cost of storing all the phone calls made in a year by an average person will be less than 2 cents, the report says. By 2020, the cost to store all the phone calls made by everyone over the age of 14 in Iran will be about $100,000, the report says.

Villaseno points to a 24-hour video surveillance program in China that will put 500,000 video cameras throughout the city of Chongquing. By 2020, all that video could be stored for 25 cents per Chongquing resident per year. 

Total costs of surveillance -- gathering, aggregating, managing, analyzing -- will be greater, but as Big Data becomes a reality, tools for handling it will become better and cheaper. "[T]he problem of managing large data sets occurs in many contexts, not just in the surveillance of people in authoritarian countries," the report says. "Many of the solutions that are being developed in the commercial world for searching and analyzing data could be applied to state-sponsored surveillance as well." 

Future uprisings like those recently against governments in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt and Iran will become less likely against regimes that can monitor and modify an entire nation's communications in near-real time, Villaseno says. "Awareness of the likelihood that all messages -- including those that are encrypted -- will eventually be read by security services will chill dissent," he says.