Martial Law, Detention Camps and Kangaroo Courts: Are We Recreating the Third Reich?

By John W. Whitehead

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."--Martin Niemoller

Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it's only as effective as those who abide by it. However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution's provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.

Unfortunately, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it's done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism. Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government's interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.

Just recently, for example, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in?U.S. v. Westhoven?that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you--even if you've done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

In that same vein, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in a 5-4 ruling in?Navarette v. California?that police officers can, under the guise of "reasonable suspicion," stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior.

And then you have the Supreme Court's refusal to hear?Hedges v. Obama, a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), thereby affirming that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens, based on a?suspicion?that they might be associated with or aiding terrorist organizations.

All three cases reflect a mindset in which the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, once the map by which we navigated sometimes hostile terrain, has been unceremoniously booted out of the runaway car that is our government, driven over and left for road kill on the side of the road. All that can be seen in the rear view mirror are the tire marks on its ragged frame.

What we are dealing with, as I document in my book?A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, is a run-away government hyped up on its own power, whose policies are dictated more by paranoia than need. Making matters worse, "we the people" have become so gullible, so easily distracted, and so out-of-touch that we are ignoring the warning signs all around us and failing to demand that government officials of all stripes--the White House, Congress, the courts, the military, law enforcement, the endless parade of bureaucrats, etc.--respect our rights and abide by the rule of law.

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the NDAA indefinite detention case--which challenged whether the government can lawfully lock up American citizens who might be deemed extremists or terrorists (the government likes to use these words interchangeably) for criticizing the government--is one such warning sign that we would do well to heed.

The building blocks are already in place for such an eventuality: the surveillance networks, fusion centers and government contractors already monitor what is being said by whom; government databases track who poses a potential threat to the government's power; the militarized police, working in conjunction with federal agencies, coordinate with the federal government when it's time to round up the troublemakers; the courts sanction the government's methods, no matter how unlawful; and the detention facilities, whether private prisons or FEMA internment camps, to lock up the troublemakers.

For those who can read the writing on the wall, it's all starting to make sense: the military drills carried out in major American cities, the VIPR inspections at train depots and bus stations, the SWAT team raids on unsuspecting homeowners, the Black Hawk helicopters patrolling American skies, the massive ammunition purchases by various federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

Viewed in conjunction with the government's increasing use of involuntary commitment laws to declare individuals mentally ill and lock them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time, the NDAA's provision allowing the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone, including American citizens, only codifies this unraveling of our constitutional framework.

Throw in the profit-driven corporate incentive to jail Americans in private prisons, as well as the criminalizing of such relatively innocent activities as holding Bible studies in one's home or sharing unpasteurized goat cheese with members of one's community, and it becomes clear that "we the people" have become enemies of the state. Thus, it's no longer a question of?whether?the government will lock up Americans for First Amendment activity but?when. (It's particularly telling that the government's lawyers, when pressed for an assurance that those exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government would?not?be targeted under the NDAA, refused to provide one.)

History shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain "order" in the homeland. The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in?Korematsu v. US?(1944), concluding that the government's need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties. That decision has never been overturned.

In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has long been part of the government's budget and operations, falling under the jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA's murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government's disaster relief agencies into one large agency. During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.

FEMA's role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented. But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you're an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of "dangerous" viewpoints are advocating states' rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, "conspiracy theorizing," concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for "economic justice," frustration with "mainstream ideologies," opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.

Now if you're going to have internment camps on American soil, someone has to build them. Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be built, they rationalized the need for them in case of "an emergency influx of immigrants,?or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies such as "natural disasters."

Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political dissidents. So it's no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation. As?Salon?reports, this database, reportedly dubbed "Main Core," is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. As of 2008, there were some 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.

Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on "Rightwing Extremism," which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups "that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely," and one on "Leftwing Extremism," which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists. Both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably. That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be "disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war."

These reports indicate that for the government, so-called extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government--whether they're Left, Right or somewhere in between--is a target, which brings us back, full circle, to where we started, with the NDAA's indefinite detention provision, whose language is so broad and vague as to implicate anyone critical of the government.

Unfortunately, we seem to be coming full circle on many fronts. Consider that a decade ago we were debating whether non-citizens--for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11--were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention. Americans weren't overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, and now we're the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.

Similarly, most Americans weren't unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone--ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile--they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Two years later, the cops have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they?suspect?might be doing something illegal (mind you, in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the birds to growing exotic orchids).

Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the population today unconcerned about the government's practice of spying on Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn't matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be--eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be "wrong" and suspect.

Martin Niemoller learned that particular lesson the hard way. A German military officer turned theologian, Niemoller was an early supporter of Hitler's rise to power. It was only when Hitler threatened to attack the churches that Niemoller openly opposed the regime. For his efforts, Neimoller was arrested, charged with activities against the government, fined, detained, and eventually interned in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1938 to 1945.

As Niemoller reportedly replied when asked by his cellmate why he ever supported the Nazi party:

I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me... Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews... Hitler?s assurance satisfied me at the time...I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.

_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- White House Propaganda Photo, Revised and Corrected
- "Check Your Privilege" Is An Idiotic Phrase
- Only "Extremists" Believe They Have a Right to be Left Alone
- No Foraging in the King's Forest Because It Hurts The Peasants
- Deja Vu in Ukraine
- How to Kill a Man
- Raising Up Compliant Children in the American Police State
- The BLM: Scourge Of "Lesser Breeds Without the Law"

A little ways down the main page for informationliberation you see even a story about a high court upholding "driving correctly with hands at 10 and 2" as "probable cause" because it is "stiff driving" (i.e. meticulously following not only the law, but best practices for driving an automobile) and therefore suspicious. You can't make this crap up. If THAT is PC (probable cause) then NOTHING ISN'T and the legal term has no meaning. I guess Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have a chance with his nontirivial abilities of observations.

You may argue whatever you want, but in the end those observations have proven to be valid, haven't they. So is there much point to discuss if they were valid or not? it was not only stiff posture but also some other factors, and if the officer was so attentive and experienced that it was enough for him to make valid, and I repeat - valid conclusion that the drugs are there, then he only deserves a praise to his professionalism.

Of course it would be so much better if that experience and skills were applied to solving a real crime rather than this boring drug-related bullshit over and over again. I find it funny that practically all Supreme Court cases that are cited by libertarians related to police powers to arrest and search, all without a single exception were about admitting or not the evidence of the drugs. I don't recall a single case about violating human rights per se, such as illegal arrest by itself - no, it's always an attempt to suppress finding of the drugs as evidence. But in the end they were found, weren't they, so is there much point to waive the fists after the fight is over?

No, that's really wrong. Seizure of money with no court finding, no arrest happen all the time. Finding non-criminal amount of marihuana is not a drug smuggling operation. Look, it all comes down to, do you believe it is ok to be stopped, of all things, for driving correctly? Do you want to b stopped, inconvenienced, bullied, cowed, at any moment in time?

There are more people getting stopped and searched illegally who have no drugs. It happens all the time. It's wrong. Police are supposed to do police work, not take every oppurtunity to go through citizens papers, personal belongings, vehicles, be searched, all the while suppressing ANY and all attempts to record them doing this.

Because that was not the intent of the constitution at all. In fact it is exactly what the USA was supposed to remedy, the kings minions stopping anyone anytime for any reason, searching through private possessions (which being private are personal).

Sure, of you watch "cops" they edit out the times someone gets pressured, coerced, lied to in order to gain access to search them or their vehicles, and not find anything.

If you think that is a "free country" you are delusional.

By the way, as much as I love the original (and even the new series) Sherlock Holmes, it should be pointed out that that is a literary construct. Take virtually ANY of his conclusions from observation and deduction, and there are countless other just as likely and possible explanations, some which are even more plausible than his conclusions. That is one of the problems....belief in fairy stories like that as if it were real. The people doing the surveillance of all, guaranteed say to each other things like "well, that can't be coincidence" when in fact, statistically it is well within the bounds of coincidence. First time I visited Vancouver, BC, a huge city, in a weeks time I, totally by chance, rank to the same couple who were strangers to me three times in three different parts of the he city. The last time, I was following my girlfriends brother into an apartment complex to pick up a friend of his, and the guy of the couple is walking down the stairs going to do laundry.

I mean what are the chances? What if he was a terrorist? How many times does this happen (answer, all the time) where you miss the person by a minute and never even realize? What are the odds that third time he'd be going down the stairs at the exact moment I was walking up them to go to a different apartment? Hell, I could have lived next door and taken six months to run into the person, but I ws only there for about three minutes, but there he was. Any surveillance folk watching him would have tagged me ("you can't tell me THAT is a coincidence. This guy meets the other guy three times in a week, once in a stairwell!") and been absolutely sure I knew this person.

That kind of stuff scares the hell out of me. Morons with hunches, Sherlock Holmes wannabes.
Sure they are right and dumb as rocks.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

U.S. Ranks Third Lowest of Eleven Countries on Health Care Spending

By John R. Graham

Every year, scholars from the Commonwealth Fund report the results of a survey of eleven developed countries, which questions thousands of residents about their health costs and access to health care. The media invariably cherry pick the report to produce headlines like this: "We pay more, wait longer than other countries".

Perhaps there is not much point in getting worked up about it. Every industrial democracy, including the United States, has a largely socialized health system. So, the headline might just as well be: "Differently socialized health systems impose different costs of socialism". However, the authors (and the media) insist that there is some clear blue sky that separates the United States from all other developed countries, which have "universal" health systems.

The authors attempt to describe the differences between various "universal" health systems, but this is not quite successful. It is unclear what they mean by "supplemental" private coverage. For example, they differentiate the British and Canadian health systems by claiming that Canada has supplemental private coverage. However, this is not quite accurate: Dental care and prescriptions are covered by the National Health Service in Britain, and by private insurers in most Canadian provinces. However, there is no supplemental hospital insurance in Canada, as there is in Britain through BUPA, for example. It is also clear from the media coverage that most reporters have little, if any, grasp of the differences between, for example, the Swiss health system and the German one.

Also, it is hard to determine whether national averages are very meaningful. Differences in spending and access within individual countries have come under increasing scrutiny. For example, the Dartmouth Atlas shows wide variance of Medicare spending, even within small regions (although the significance and causes of this variance are also under great dispute). Alternatively, we can look at childhood vaccinations. In Nebraska, 94.2 percent of infants receive recommended vaccinations, which puts it first among the states. Right next door, in Wyoming, the proportion is only 82.5 percent, which puts it in last place according to America's Health Rankings.

The survey's finding that causes the most shock and awe is health spending as a share of GDP. In the United States, health spending accounted for almost 18 percent of GDP in 2011. The Netherlands comes next, at just under 12 percent. In dollar figures, the United States spent $8,508 per capita, versus only $5,669 in Norway, the runner-up. This certainly invites us to question whether we are getting our money's worth. Free-market reforms, as John Goodman described in Priceless, are expected to reduce costs.

However, it's not clear that relatively high U.S. health spending is a burden on the nation. Table A, which uses data from the survey, shows that when we subtracted U.S. health spending from our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), we still had $39,560 per capita to spend on everything else we value. Only two countries, Norway and Switzerland, beat the United States on this measure. In the United Kingdom, for example, GDP per capita after health spending was only $32,818 in 2011 (adjusted for the cost of living). So, even though American health care is significantly more expensive than British health care, the average American enjoyed $6,742 more GDP after health spending than his British peer.

Indeed, there is good evidence that high GDP per capita is a cause of high health spending. David Cutler and Dan Ly have explained that physicians' incomes are a major factor driving up U.S. health spending. The average U.S. specialist earned an income of $230,000 (2010) versus $129,000 in twelve other developed countries.*

That is a dramatic difference, but it has little to do with health care per se. Rather, it is a specific case of the general distribution of labor income within a country. Overall, high-income earners in other developed countries earn significantly less than high-income earners in the United States. Cutler and Ly define "high earners" as those in the 95th to 99th percentile of the earnings distribution. He shows that U.S. specialists earn 37 percent more than the average of these U.S. high earners. However, their international peers earn 45 percent more than their high-earning non-physician peers.

When an American physician laments the state of medicine, and encourages her child to become a computer scientist or investment banker instead, this is what she is talking about. So, it is highly unlikely that we could reduce U.S. physicians' incomes, and maintain an adequate supply of them, without destroying the opportunity for Americans (and immigrants) to earn high incomes in lots of different fields.

Reducing the cost of U.S. health care is a worthy goal, but it needs to be achieved by reducing the role of government at home, not importing a different model of government intervention from abroad.

*Cutler, David M., and Dan P. Ly. 2011. "The (Paper)Work of Medicine: Understanding International Medical Costs." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2): 11-13. It is unclear whether Cutler is reporting 2010 earnings in 2010 dollars or 2004 constant dollars.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- Bitcoin: Segway, Cigarette, or Gold Doubloon?
- Faber: 'We are in a massive speculative bubble'
- Ultimate Bitcoin Showdown: Schiff vs. Voorhees
- Get Ready to Pay More Online: Supremes Refuse to Hear Internet Tax Case
- Peter Schiff Interviewed on London Real
- The True Value of Bitcoin: What You Really Need To Know
- Jeffrey Tucker - Laissez Faire and the Love of Life Itself
- Unemployed and Deployed in America

The other area of concern with these numbers for me is the fact we spend so much on dental care and cosmetic medicicine, all which is computed in these numbers (I checked). Compared with Europe who is not that concerned with teeth or cosmetic medicine, is it really a bad thing we spend more than other countries? I mean we spend more because we can. I'll wait until I'm sober, to respond to the idiot above me here^.
Because, "good oral health," hasn't been linked to...? (Come on, you've done your research - tell us the answer)....

Because, I could care less what people spend THEIR OWN money on.
(F*ck, just when I was beginning to think I could tolerate socialism.... )

@nonymous 76176, please forgive my ad homonym attack. I should have found a more suitable synonym for "liberal," rather than, "idiot." I just, kinda can't stand people, who think they have the right to think for others.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here