The War Against Bradley Manning -- A War Against All Who Speak Out Against Injustice

by John W. Whitehead

Time and again, throughout America?s history, individuals with a passion for truth and a commitment to justice have opted to defy the unjust laws and practices of the American government in order to speak up against slavery, segregation, discrimination, and war. Even when their personal safety and freedom were on the line, these individuals spoke up, knowing they would be chastised, ridiculed, arrested, branded traitors and even killed.

Indeed, while brave men and women such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Henry David Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman are lauded as American heroes today, they were once considered enemies of the state.

Thanks to the U.S. government?s growing intolerance for dissidents who insist on transparency and accountability, oppose its endless wars and targeted killings of innocent civilians and terrorists alike, and demand that government officials abide by the rule of law, that list of so-called ?enemies of the state? is growing.

One such ?enemy of the state? is Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst who has been targeted by the Obama administration for holding up a mirror to the bloated face of American empire. Manning is being prosecuted for leaking classified government documents which, like the Pentagon Papers a generation ago, expose systemic corruption within America?s military and diplomatic apparatus. The embarrassment caused by showing that the emperor has no clothes, as it were, has made Bradley Manning public enemy number one in the eyes of the federal government.

As Chris Hedges explains:

?Manning provided to the public the most important window into the inner workings of imperial power since the release of the Pentagon Papers. The routine use of torture, the detention of Iraqis who were innocent, the inhuman conditions within our secret detention facilities, the use of State Department officials as spies in the United Nations, the collusion with corporations to keep wages low in developing countries such as Haiti, and specific war crimes such as the missile strike on a house that killed seven children in Afghanistan would have remained hidden without Manning.?

Despite not being convicted of any crime, Manning has been put through a horror trip since the first day of his incarceration in the military brig at Quantico. He has spent 1,000 days in jail without trial, a large portion of which was passed in solitary confinement, imprisoned in a windowless 6 x 12 foot cell containing a bed, a drinking fountain and a toilet. Manning was kept under Suicide and/or Prevention of Injury (POI) watch during his incarceration, largely against the advice of two forensic psychiatrists. Under suicide watch, Manning was confined to his tiny cell for 24 hours a day and stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear.

Once he was finally brought before a military court, Manning pled guilty to ten of the twenty-two charges brought against him, admitting that he leaked the documents because he believed that the public has a right to know about the government?s misdeeds. Manning?s admission guarantees that he will be put into prison for up to twenty years. However, instead of proceeding to sentencing, government prosecutors are insisting on pressing the most serious charges against him, including ?aiding the enemy,? in an attempt to imprison him for life.

The government?s aim is clear: to make an example of Manning (what Yale professor Eugene Fidell describes as an attempt to ?scare the daylights out of other people?), thereby discouraging anyone else from defying the regime or daring to lay bare the inner workings of a corrupt government.

Indeed, despite promising unprecedented levels of transparency when he ascended to the presidency in 2009, Obama has invoked the WWI-era Espionage Act more times than all his predecessors combined as a means of silencing all internal dissent and criticism. Obama?s administration has also launched an all-out campaign to roust out, prosecute, and imprison government whistleblowers for exposing government corruption, incompetence, and greed.

Thus, Bradley Manning is merely the latest whistleblower to be singled out for punishment. So determined is the government to crucify Manning that government prosecutors plan to make the case that Manning essentially aided and abetted Osama bin Laden. Manning?s trial, which promises to be a government spectacle of manufactured ?shock and awe,? will feature testimony from an anonymous Navy Seal who took part in the raid on Osama bin Laden?s Abbottabad compound. This Seal will reportedly testify that he recovered computer discs in Osama bin Laden?s personal effects containing government material that originated from Manning?s leak.

What the government is attempting to suggest is that if an individual or news organization publishes information that is accessed by terrorists over the internet, for example, then those individuals or news organizations are essentially guilty of collusion.

Stacking the odds in their favor, government prosecutors have refused to allow Manning?s defense team to interview government witnesses or to introduce evidence showing that Manning?s leak of government information did little, if any, harm to U.S. interests other than showing that the Obama administration is no different from its predecessors. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the publication of the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary had ?not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources or methods.? As for the leak of some 250,000 State Department documents, a report by Reuters indicates that the damage caused was ?limited,? and was for the most part simply an embarrassment to the Obama administration.

Manning reacted as one would hope any honorable American would react when they witness their government acting in a manner that is corrupt, incompetent, inhumane, immoral and, it must be said, downright evil.

To his credit, Manning refused to remain silent. He spoke out, first to his superiors, who turned a deaf ear to his concerns, then to the New York Times and Washington Post. When he still could find no one willing to alert the American people to what their government was really doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, he turned to Wikileaks.

The rest, as they say, is history.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of 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
- Only an Incipient 'Terrorist' Denounces State Murder
- Doug Casey: If I Were President
- Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make
- Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?
- Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.
- Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
- The Will Of The People Doesn't Mean Jack To Drug Warriors
- Americans Can Be Executed Without Charges -- But Criminal Banks Can't Be Prosecuted

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

Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?

by Wendy McElroy

On March 5th, a headline in the left-leaning Mother Jones declared, ?Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil.? A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Republican Senator Rand Paul was the cause. (A screenshot of the full letter is here.) Rand had written to John Brennan, the current nominee for Director of the CIA, to ask whether the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil without due process. Brennan requested Holder to address legal aspects of the question, which Obama and his administration have hitherto refused to answer. Holder's March 4 letter may have broken the silence because Rand threatened to filibuster Brennan's nomination if there was no response. (Indeed, Rand was filibustering as I wrote this article.)

Conservatives and libertarians are enraged by Holder's letter; liberals offer a mixed reaction. An admin at the left-leaning Daily Kos site, for example, blasts Mother Jones for inaccuracy. Others claim the Presidential power is nothing new and Holder's comments are unexceptional. Teasing out the truth means deconstructing the letter.

DECONSTRUCTING HOLDER

This letter was written and vetted with meticulous care. Holder did not misstate his position. The letter's vague and non-responsive nature is deliberate and its few specifics are revealing.

Holder opens with an assurance: ?[T]he US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.? [All words in bold are emphasis added]

Obama did not even disclose the existence of a drone program on American soil until his hand was forced; the memos upon which the program's legal authority is based remain secret. This non-transparency makes it impossible to assess Obama's intentions, and reduces Holder's position to ?trust us.? The words ?as a policy matter? are significant because the use of military force instead of law enforcement is dismissed strictly as policy, not on grounds of law or the Constitution. Policies change constantly and often without notice. Moreover, given the extreme militarization of US law enforcement, complete with police drones, it is strange to reassure Americans that they would be killed by law enforcement and not the military. The distinction does obviate some legal questions, however. For example, it bypasses any lingering shred of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of a President to use the federal military to enforce law.

Holder continues. The administration has ?a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.? Again, this is a policy statement. Moreover, various federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have identified broad categories of law-abiding Americans as potential terrorists. Gun advocates, military veterans and strict Constitutionalists place consistently high on that list. By broadening the focus to include America's ?interests abroad,? Holder also signals that the Americans targeted need not be violent but merely a threat to US interests. It would be difficult to be more vague.

Holder now approaches the meat of the letter. ?The question you [Rand Paul] have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.? The statement is entirely incorrect. On February 20th, Paul asked whether Obama had ?the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial.? This is a specific, real world question; it asks an Attorney General to comment on a point of federal law, which he would be or has been instrumental in forging. Holder's dismissal of Rand's question as theoretical, however, allows him to rephrase it in a form he wishes to address.

Holder's non-answer? ?It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.? The rephrasing allows Holder to avoid the key issue of due process. Unfortunately, few people deny the authority of a President to kill violent Americans who threaten national security. But they balk at his signing secret orders to kill Americans without arrest or a trial. Due process is being reduced to Obama's signature on a piece of paper that will never be seen.

Nevertheless, Holder is at least and at last rendering a legal opinion. Yes, under ?extraordinary circumstances,? it is legal ?under the Constitution and applicable laws...for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force? on American soil.

It is impossible to know what constitutes ?extraordinary circumstances.? America has been in a state of war and militarization for almost 12 years since 9/11. It could refer to circumstances law enforcement cannot handle and, so, the military becomes necessary. In reality, ?extraordinary? will mean whatever the administration wishes. The national emergency could be nothing more than a grassroots refusal of Americans to voluntarily surrender guns. At that point, Obama could bypass both Congress and the Constitution by invoking the War Powers Act and declare martial law.

It is also not possible to decipher which ?applicable laws? are referenced. Perhaps Holder is appealing to ?War on Terror? laws such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The latter is a joint resolution passed by Congress in 2001 to authorize the President (then Bush) to use "necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" those responsible for 9/11. Indeed, the words used by Holder -- ?necessary and appropriate? ? echo the wording of the AUMF. It is equally unclear which part of the Constitution is referenced. Certainly, it is not the Bill of Rights. This means that neither Congress nor the public will know the circumstances and legal authority under which President believes it is appropriate to kill Americans on US soil.

The two specific examples of ?extraordinary circumstances? only confuse the issue further. He states, ?the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.?

The examples are the bombing or Pearl Harbor and 9/11. They are bizarre. For one thing, neither incident was perpetrated by Americans. Moreover, Holder endorses the Presidential execution of Americans after a crisis has occurred and not to prevent one. This differs sharply from the administration's justification for torture; namely, that information extracted in a ?timely manner? may prevent the loss of American lives.

The ?timely manner? aspect becomes all the more bizarre in light of Holder's concluding sentence: ?Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority.? Pearl Harbor occurred literally out of the blue in the early morning hours; 9/11 was equally unexpected and swift. Does anyone believe Holder thinks there would be time to ?examine the particular facts and circumstances? of a surprise attack that hits like a lightning bolt? Does anyone believe Holder does not know what the administration's response would be down to the color of Obama's underwear?

CONCLUSION

The Obama administration is profoundly secretive and dishonest. Holder's letter is an exercise in obfuscation which, nevertheless, does assert the President's authority to kill Americans on US soil under undefined circumstances.

Certain other circumstances have been defined, however. Obama has already asserted the unprecedented power to kill Americans without due process when they are on foreign soil. Anwar al-Aulaqi was an American by birth and upbringing. He was executed by a drone attack in Yemen on September 30th, 2011. The grounds: suspicion of joining al Qaeda. No evidence of guilt has been presented because Obama has not released it.

It is also clear that the Obama administration is unwilling to explain the details or scope of the President's authority to kill Americans on US soil. At some point, when people consistently and persistently refuse to answer a question with ?no,? a reasonable person realizes the answer is ?yes.?

On March 5th, civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald summed up the situation. ?There is a theoretical framework being built.? It ?posits that the US Government has unlimited power, when it comes to any kind of threats it perceives, to take whatever action against them that it wants without any constraints or limitations of any kind.
_
Wendy McElroy is a frequent Dollar Vigilante contributor and renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at http://www.wendymcelroy.com.

View the original article here

Jim Rogers: We're Wiping Out The Savings Class Globally, To Terrible Consequence

Jim Rogers decries the growing uncertainty and recklessness of global central planners as the world enters unchartered financial markets:

For the first time in recorded history, we have nearly every central bank printing money and trying to debase their currency. This has never happened before. How it?s going to work out, I don't know. It just depends on which one goes down the most and first, and they take turns. When one says a currency is going down, the question is against what? because they are all trying to debase themselves. It?s a peculiar time in world history.

I own the dollar, not because I have any confidence in the dollar and not because it?s sound ? it?s a terribly flawed currency ? but I expect more currency turmoil, more financial turmoil. During periods like that, people, for whatever reason, flee to the U.S. dollar as a safe haven. It is not a safe haven, but it is perceived that way by some people. That?s why the dollar is going up. That?s why I own it. Will I own it in five years, ten years? I don't know.

It makes it extremely difficult for the investor looking for acceptable risk/reward, or the saver looking to protect their purchasing power; as in Rogers' view, all options have their problems:

I own gold and silver and precious metals. I own all commodities, which is a better way to play as they debase currencies. I own more agriculture than just about anything else in real assets because of the reasons we discussed before. We were talking before about the risk-free or worry-free investment. Even gold: the Indian politicians are talking about coming down hard on gold, and India is the largest buyer of gold in the world. If Indian politicians do something ? whether it?s foolish or not is irrelevant ? if they do something, gold could go down a lot. So I own it. I?m not selling it. But everything has problems.

To Rogers, the bigger danger that concerns him is the hollowing out of the 'saving class' resulting from this situation. Central planners' policies are punishing the prudent in favor of rescuing the irresponsible. This has happened before in world history, and the aftermath has always had grievous economic, social ? and often human ? costs:

Throughout our history ? any country?s history ? the people who save their money and invest for their future are the ones that you build an economy, a society, and a nation on.

In America, many people saved their money, put it aside, and didn?t buy four or five houses with no job and no money down. They did what most people would consider the right thing, and what historically has been the right thing. But now, unfortunately, those people are being wiped out, because they are getting 0% return, or virtually no return, on their savings and their investments. We?re wiping them out at the expense of people who went deeply into debt, people who did what most people would consider the wrong thing at the expense of people who did the right thing. This, long-term, has terrible consequences for any nation, any society, any economy.

If you go back in history, you'll see what happed to the Germans when they wiped out their savings class in the 1920s. It didn?t lead to good things down the road for Germany. It didn?t lead to good things for Italy, which did the same thing. There were plenty of countries where it wiped out the people who saved and invested for their future. It?s usually a serious, political reaction, desperation in some cases, and looking for a savior and easy answers is usually what happens when you destroy the people who save and invest for the future.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Jim Rogers (18m:59s):

(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
- Puerto Rico To Become Epic Tax Haven For U.S. Citizens?: 'The Idea Is To Turn It Into An Alternative To Singapore'
- Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
- Remarkable New Puerto Rican Law Exempts U.S. Citizens From Multitude Of Taxes
- Stock Rally Will End Badly This Year: Marc Faber
- Government thinks that you are an idiot
- Amateur Beats Gov't at Digitizing Newspapers: Tom Tryniski's Weird, Wonderful Website
- The Fed's Tightening Pipe Dream
- Bullet Proof Vest Company Begins Making Armored Clothing For Children

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

NJ Gun Owner Arrested For Possession Now Released on Own Recognizance

On Thursday January 25th, New Jersey police officers entered the apartment of Keith Pantaleon without permission, warning, warrant or explanation. After entering the apartment, they apparently had suspicion of him having a weapon, though none were visible. The police then searched his home and found multiple firearms. Keith is a legal gun owner who is registered and has permits for his firearms in multiple states. Keith's bail was set for $75,000 but after looking over his case, a judge dropped the bail and he was released on his on recognizance. He is currently waiting to be indicted.

Watch the first video on this story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oJfsCMpecU

Read the full press release: http://wearechange.org/keith-press-release/

If you would like to help Keith with his case: http://www.gofundme.com/Stand4Keith or email: stand4keith@gmail.com

(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 Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

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

Media Portrays DHS Ammo Purchases as Conspiracy Theory

Media circles the wagons, goes into desperate damage control
Paul Joseph Watson

The establishment media, aided by a raft of leftist websites, is still portraying concern over the Department of Homeland Security?s purchase of some 2 billion rounds of ammunition as a conspiracy theory by regurgitating the glib statement of a single DHS official.

The latest examples include Media Matters and Raw Story, both of which attacked Fox Business host Lou Dobbs for daring to raise the issue on his March 4 broadcast during an interview with the NRA?s Wayne LaPierre.

Statement by Alex Jones: ?Lou Dobbs hit the nail on the head, the reason we have the second amendment is to defend ourselves from a domestic government arms build-up which is always a prelude to state oppression. That?s why White House front groups like Media Matters and Politico are stonewalling this issue by saying it doesn?t exist. This is exactly the same thing former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted to when he said he was ordered to deny the drone program ? which was publicly admitted to exist ? as a psychological warfare tactic to confuse the public.?

?The globalists are building a domestic army under the cover of national security ? and only now does the second amendment ? laid down by our visionary founders ? come alive to fulfil its true purpose as a counter balance and shield against usurpers and tyrants everywhere.?

Hijacking confusion about whether 2,717 armored vehicles were destined for the DHS or the United States Marine Corps, Media Matters, which has been documented to be little more than an Obama administration mouthpiece, reported that, ?The claim that DHS bought a 1.6 billion bullet stockpile is also misleading,? while simultaneously admitting that ?DHS did buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.?

The source of the claim that concerns over the bullet buys are a conspiracy theory or ?misleading,? cited by both Media Matters and Raw Story, is a February 14 Associated Press report which did not conduct any actual investigation into why the DHS was purchasing the ammo, instead regurgitating a statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bullets were bought in bulk to save money and were for training purposes only.

Firstly, the notion that the DHS, which threatened to release 10,000 illegal aliens because it couldn?t afford to house them while simultaneously building numerous new detention centers for illegal aliens at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, is the least bit interested in ?saving money? is asinine.

This is an agency that has become synonymous with wasting taxpayers? money yet one which has also enjoyed a budget increase year upon year even as the economy flatlines.

Secondly, the claim that the bullets were for training purposes only was blithely accepted and regurgitated by the AP despite being inherently disingenuous.

The majority of the bullets purchased by the DHS as part of its 2 billion round ammo buying spree were hollow point bullets (one order alone amounted to 450 million of them). Hollow point bullets just happen to be completely unsuitable for training purposes because they cost significantly more money compared to standard firing range bullets. This debunks both the ?saving money? argument and the ?for training purposes only? claim in one fell swoop.

Thirdly, the fact that the Associated Press also treated a DHS statement as the gospel truth, when the agency has been caught lying innumerable times, particularly on TSA body scanner issues and most recently with Janet Napolitano?s erroneous claim that the sequester debate was causing delays in airports, also serves as another reminder as to why distrust in the mainstream media is at an all time high.

The media also acted in unison following former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin?s warning last week that the federal government is ?stockpiling bullets? in preparation for ?civil unrest,? savaging Palin as a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic who was spewing Alex Jones-style ?conspiracy theories.?

Atlantic Wire responded by claiming Palin had obtained her rhetoric from a ?debunked email? concerning the Social Security Administration?s purchase of 174,000 bullets last year, completely omitting the admitted DHS purchase of 2 billion bullets like it didn?t exist.

Politico also made reference to the Atlantic Wire ?debunking? (despite the fact that it represented lying by omission and not a debunking at all), as well as reporting that concerns over the DHS ammo purchases had been rebutted by the ?feds? and the ?media?.

Apparently, the mainstream media has failed to grasp that concerns about government activity cannot be ?debunked? by merely repeating glib statements issued by government officials.

Amidst all the so-called ?debunkings? of the bullet buys, the media has also conveniently ignored the DHS? purchase of 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles last September as well as the agency?s $2 million dollar relationship with a contractor that recently had to apologize for producing shooting targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings.

The DHS has also been busy buying large supplies of body armor, leading to shortages. Last year, the agency put out an urgent order for ?riot gear? in anticipation of civil unrest. The agency has also ordered bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings over the course of the last 12 months. None of this has been addressed by the mainstream media.

While claiming to have ?debunked? concerns about the DHS? purchase of 2 billion bullets, the likes of the Associated Press, Politico, Media Matters, the Atlantic Wire and others have only debunked themselves ? by relying on a single dubious statement from a DHS official as their source in addition to repeatedly lying by omission.

Is it any wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll found that just 6 per cent of Americans rate the mainstream media as ?very trustworthy? when the corporate press now behaves as if merely repeating the glib statements of government officials is an acceptable way of ascertaining the truth about a story?
_
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

(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 Cover-Up/Deceptions
- Judge questions credibility of Dallas police officers -- "Doesn't add up"
- Police Ludicrously Claim Dorner Cabin Fire Was Not Intentional
- How Many Wallets With ID Cards In Them Did Dorner Own?
- Police Scanners Reveal "Plan" To Burn Dorner House Down
- FBI 'Stops' Yet Another Of Its Own Terrorist Threats
- Anderson Cooper Confronted at CNN on Sandy Hook: 'You Were in Front of a Green Screen and You Are a Liar'
- SANDY HOOK - The Documentary (Part 1/2) 2013 OFFICIAL
- RFK Jr: JFK Probe 'Shoddy,' Doesn't Believe Lone Gunman Theory

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

Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest

Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals allows false arrest lawsuit to proceed against cops who arrested motorist for being up to no good.

A motorist who was less than cooperative when police performed a traffic stop on her property was vindicated Friday. A federal appeals court made it clear that taking a longer than expected time to produce identification and "being up to no good," was not grounds for arrest.

In an unpublished ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit allowed Gina Petithomme to sue the Miami-Dade, Florida police department over the treatment she received at the hands of officers on February 6, 2009. Officers Ronald Martin and Jesus Gonzalez had been dispatched to investigate a suspicious White Dodge with two black men inside at the corner of 148th Street and Northwest 10th Place. Before reaching that location, the officers saw a silver Nissan with a piece of white paper allegedly blocking the license plate. The Nissan was parked on private property.

Petithomme, a black woman, was inside the Nissan when officers came on her property to say they were investigating a suspicious vehicle.

"What was the description of the vehicle?" Petithomme asked.

The officers did not say they were looking for a white Dodge, and asked Petithomme to produce identification and for permission to search her vehicle. Petithomme refused the search. On a third request for identification, Petithomme asked if she could go inside her home to retrieve it. It was granted, and as soon as she left the officers began searching through the Nissan. She returned and upon being asked a fourth time, she said the license must be in her car. She finally found it.

"Here's my identification," Petithomme said, holding within Officer Martin's line of vision.

Enraged, Officer Martin arrested Petithomme on the spot, charging her with disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. The officers said the woman's attitude showed she was "up to no good." The court of appeals disagreed.

"Plaintiff's questions directed towards the officers cannot demonstrate arguable probable cause for disorderly conduct," the court ruled in a per curiam decision. "Under Florida law, screaming obscenities at an officer is not sufficient to violate the statute, and thus, no reasonable officer could have concluded that asking an officer a benign question could constitute a violation of the statute."

Petithomme successfully argued her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated with an illegal search.

"Here, plaintiff and her vehicle did not match the descriptions or the location given by dispatch," the court found. "Thus, the only circumstances suggesting illegal activity was the white paper obstructing plaintiff's tag. The obstructed tag, however, is insufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that evidence relating to this infraction would be found inside the vehicle."

Because official immunity cannot be granted to an officer who violates a constitutional right, Officers Martin and Gonzalez are now liable for damages in Petithomme's false arrest lawsuit.

A copy of the decision is available in a 70k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Petithomme v. County of Miami-Dade (US Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 3/8/2013)

(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 Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled
- Woman injured in LAPD manhunt says cops won't pay taxes on replacement truck

Awesome! I hope she and her lawyer hang the cops out to dry.

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

Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs

by Kevin Carson

With American drug use levels essentially the same as ? and levels of drug-related violence either the same as or lower than ? those in countries like the Netherlands with liberal drug laws, public support for the War on Drugs appears to be faltering. This was most recently evidenced in the victory of major drug decriminalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington. Some misguided commentators go so far as to say the Drug War is ?a failure.? Here, to set the record straight, are fifteen ways in which it is a resounding success:

1. It has surrounded the Fourth Amendment?s ?search and seizure? restrictions, and similar provisions in state constitutions, with so many ?good faith,? ?reasonable suspicion? and ?reasonable expectation of privacy? loopholes as to turn them into toilet paper for all intents and purposes.

2. In so doing, it has set precedents that can be applied to a wide range of other missions, like the War on Terror.

3. It has turned drug stores and banks into arms of the state that constantly inform on their customers.

4. Via programs like DARE, it has turned kids into drug informants who monitor their parents for the authorities.

5. As a result of the way DARE interacts with other things like Zero Tolerance policies and warrantless inspections by drug-sniffing dogs, the Drug War has conditioned children to believe ?the policeman is their friend,? and to view snitching as admirable behavior, and to instinctively look for an authority figure to report to the second they see anything the least bit eccentric or anomalous.

6. Via civil forfeiture, it has enabled the state to create a lucrative racket in property stolen from citizens never charged, let alone convicted, of a crime. Best of all, even possessing large amounts of cash, while technically not a crime, can be treated as evidence of intent to commit a crime ? saving the state the trouble of having to convert all that stolen tangible property into liquid form.

7. It has enabled local police forces to undergo military training, create paramilitary SWAT teams that operate just like the U.S. military in an occupied enemy country, get billions of dollars worth of surplus military weaponry, and wear really cool black uniforms just like the SS.

8. Between the wars on the urban drug trade and rural meth labs, it has brought under constant harassment and surveillance two of the demographic groups in our country ? inner city blacks and rural poor whites ? least socialized to accept orders from authority either in the workplace or political system, and vital components of any potential movement for freedom and social justice.

9.In addition, it brings those who actually fall into the clutches of the criminal justice system into a years-long cycle of direct control through imprisonment and parole.

10. By disenfranchising convicted felons, it restricts participation in the state?s ?democratic? processes to only citizens who are predisposed to respect the state?s authority.

11. In conjunction with shows like Law and Order and COPS, it conditions the middle class citizenry to accept police authoritarianism and lawlessness as necessary to protect them against the terrifying threat of people voluntarily ingesting substances into their own bodies.

12. Through ?if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear? rhetoric, it conditions the public to assume the surveillance state means well and that only evildoers object to ubiquitous surveillance.

13. In conjunction with endless military adventures overseas and ?soldiers defend our freedoms? rhetoric, it conditions the public to worship authority figures in uniform, and predisposes them to cheerfully accept future augmentations of military and police authority without a peep of protest.

14. It creates enormously lucrative opportunities for the large banks ? one of the most important real constituencies of the American government ? to launder money from drug trafficking.

15. Thanks to major drug production centers like the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia, the opium industry in Afghanistan, and the cocaine industry in South America, it enables the CIA ? the world?s largest narcotrafficking gang ? to obtain enormous revenues for funding black ops and death squads around the world. This network of clandestine intelligence agencies, narcotraffickers and death squads, by the way, is the other major real constituency of the American government.

The Drug War would indeed be a failure if its real function was to reduce drug consumption or drug-related violence. But the success or failure of state policies is rightly judged by the extent to which they promote the interests served by the state. The Drug War is a failure only if the state exists to serve you.
_
Kevin Carson is a senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org) and holds the Center's Karl Hess Chair in Social Theory. He is a mutualist and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation, and his own Mutualist Blog.

View the original article here