I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. Read the second part where he talks about overthrowing the evil empire, starting in Utah. Strangely, he is willing to say good bye to the United States, hello "America". When he should be saying, good-bye ZOG, hello the good old USA.

Anti-US but Pro-American
Some thoughts on the
Military Commissions Act of 2006
by Christopher Ketcham
Well, that tears it. I read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 on my sh*tty little dial-up connection here in the cabin, and immediately went to the pawn shop in Moab and bought another rifle. Five of them now in the stash, plus a couple pistols. Ready enough to arm seven people altogether. Have you read the Military Commissions Act of 2006? I mean, read it through to its poisonous black heart, its implication for our basic freedoms, its tolling that the system of checks enshrined in the Constitution and entrusted to the three balanced branches is gone? That's extreme language, I know, but it approaches the truth.

The Military Commissions Act was offered by legislators in collusion with the Bush White House to legalize CIA and other government tactics of torture against so-called "unlawful enemy combatants." For this reason, the Military Commissions Act is now referred to by its critics as the Torture Act. In violation of the Geneva Convention and our own Anti-Torture Statute passed by Congress in 1994 – legislation that makes torture a felony punishable by 20 years in prison – the Torture Act has now "legalized" a mind-shattering array of techniques for gleaning information from the "enemy." Conveniently, it also pardons ex post facto "our brave men and women" (as George W. Bush describes them) who since the dawn of the "war on terror" have been committing crimes against humanity. The acts of torture now made legal and wholesome include the burning of flesh, the breaking of bones, the placing of needles under fingernails, the tearing of limbs, the disfiguring of faces, and the infliction of general bodily injury that may or may not entail – the fine print of the law isn't clear, making it all the more nefarious, as fine print always is – the loss of a finger or a toe or a testicle.

This is horrific enough. Upon further investigation of the document, however, one discovers that the enemy is not just the faceless Islamic horde but the American people – unsurprising from a regime, abetted by its legislative branch, that already illegally wiretaps its citizens. According to the Torture Act, any American now can be declared an "unlawful combatant" to be arrested, held indefinitely without hearing or charge or trial, tortured without cease or until such time as hell freezes over. There is no guideline for how the designation of "combatant" is to be made; it simply falls from on high at the whim of the president's office. This is the secret meaning of the document. The right of habeas corpus, a right as old as the germ of democracy? Gone. Never happened. Confronting your accuser? Sorry. Hearing the charges against you? Not applicable. Right to counsel for a public trial? Forget it. The protections against cruel and unusual punishment? Your hands and feet are tied, pal. Our Congress passed this law, violating its own duty to protect the Constitution. It is now federal law that the Bill of Rights no longer applies.

Our answer as citizens should be clear. You can be paranoid and go out and buy more guns. In the near term, this is probably a bad idea, though it certainly makes freaks like me sleep better at night, knowing there is a vast armed populace ready to defend against its own government. But are Americans really willing to do so? Time will tell. Violent insurrection against the United States by New Yorkers and Ohioans and Utahns together may be necessary at some future point… when the televisions flicker out and the shelves at the Wal-Mart run short. Until then, there are other possibilities. Chief among them, in this vaunted election year, is not voting Democrat. "The problem is that the Democrats are part of the problem," observes political scientist Paul Craig Roberts in his column at Antiwar.com. "Democrats, no less than Republicans, have permitted the Bush regime to violate the separation of powers and the rule of law. A branch of government that no longer defends its power is a branch of government that no longer believes in its power. Just as the Reichstag faded away for Hitler, the U.S. Congress has faded away for the Bush administration."

Consider the significance of the sheer number of representatives and senators who voted in favor of the Torture Act. In the House, 218 Republicans, 32 Democrats. In the Senate, a vote of 65 to 34, the yeas including Joe Lieberman, Chuck Hagel, Charles Grassley, and torture victim John McCain.

The fact is that every congressperson who voted for the Torture Act must take immediate action to repeal the law and then resign forever from public service. The ancient Greeks suggest further remedies: banishment beyond the walls of the polis, to forever wander among the barbarians. Our legislators in their exile can be assured that countries such as Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea will welcome them, always looking for spokesmen to defend brutality in the name of security. Failing this, we have the hope of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has shown its colors in the Hamdan decision striking down the Bush administration's military tribunals. If both our federal gatekeepers fail us, state legislators should begin the process of nullification of the Torture Act, regarding it as a violation of the covenant between the separate states and the federal center and refusing to enforce it or abide it. How would this play out on the ground? Let's say the federal government comes to your state looking for those who have been deemed, in a process as random as lightning touching down, "unlawful enemy combatants" – perhaps someone like yourself who reads too much. The state government to whom you look for protection (we hope) rebukes the federal government's effort and refuses to hand you over. Thus is a constitutional crisis provoked (as if the Constitution isn't already in crisis).

And from there things spin out of control. We might actually witness the use of federal troops to enter into state territory to apprehend the "enemies" among us. Would state militia in the form of the National Guard be called forth to defend against the encroachment? Would militiamen come forth from the homes of Americans? Would there be balls enough among the citizens collectively for us to even reach this far in the tragedy? Let's hope so, and hope it never comes to pass; let's hope the democracy will survive the long beating of the last seven years to emerge from its shocked shell and re-engage.

But given Murphy's Law, we should be prepared otherwise. For my part, understanding that the federal government, regardless of the party in power, actively connives against my interests as a free man, that my elected leaders in Congress no longer believe in the American experiment (while spending my tax dollars in furtherance of its failure, galling thought), I am increasingly inclined to renounce the United States. I renounce it in favor of Brooklyn, New York, and Moab, Utah, in favor of the local over the global, of the polis over the imperium. Being anti-United States, I am most certainly pro-American. This, under the constantly distending definitions provided by our Congress, might just make me an "enemy" worthy of having my skin pocked black and my arms broken.

Hence the new Lee-Enfield bolt action, bought at Yama & Sons' pawnshop in Moab, whose proprietors provided 12 free rounds of .303 ammunition, which among Army-surp suppliers costs about 0.2 cents a round, i.e., goddamn cheap, ideal for readying an insurrection. A rifle invented in 1895, muzzle velocity 2,440 feet per second, maximum range 2,000 yards, deadly reliable, morbidly accurate, perfected throughout the first half of the 20th century for maintaining the falling British Empire; now for possible use to end the American one.

Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died Video clip http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-King-George.wmv

"Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror."

“Why does habeas corpus hate America” video clip
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olbermann-HabeusCorpus.wmv

Keith did a great report tonight on what the recently passed Military Commissions Act of 2006 means to America and our Constitution.

This story has been buried by Foleygate, which is a crime in itself. I had the honor of hearing Daniel Ellsberg and John Siegenthaler Sr. speak last night and the key subject was journalism in today's political environment. We are one of the only countries in the world without an official secrets act, due in a large part to the uniqueness of our first amendment. Sadly this very bill puts us even closer to enacting such legislation and putting a muzzle on the media that would have prevented the extraordinary act of patriotism that Ellsberg exhibited, as well as those that followed in the entire Watergate scandal.

... it all but eliminates access to civilian courts for non-citizens--including permanent residents whose children are citizens--that the government, in its nearly unreviewable discretion, determines to be unlawful enemy combatants....

I fail to see how "permanent residents" are citizens. The law would be "good" if "good" people were in charge. What makes the law "bad," is our enemies have this power.

As the recent presidents before him, Bushbaby is fulfilling the task the jew wanted him to do.

What will our next pres do?

Paul Craig Roberts again compares Bushystein to AH:

... Just as the Reichstag faded away for Hitler, the U.S. Congress has faded away for the Bush administration....

I'm tired of these comparisons, because there is none. One stood up to the Jew, successfully for a while. The other furthers the Jew's interest at every turn.

Paul Craig Roberts again compares Bushystein to AH: I'm tired of these comparisons, because there is none. One stood up to the Jew, successfully for a while. The other furthers the Jew's interest at every turn.

Doesn't that pic say it all ?

A disgusting little puke of a cheerleader.

And let's not forget the Jeff Gannon scandle, on top of everything else that is wrong with him, Bush is a homosexual pig.

Bush isn't fit to stand in the same room with Hitler, let alone be compared to him on any level.

.

Todd:

I hope you come on FTL, next Monday night, and talk about this legislation. We'll have Lita on the first hour, and maybe the 2nd hour we can devote to this monstrous evil.

Todd:

I hope you come on FTL, next Monday night, and talk about this legislation. We'll have Lita on the first hour, and maybe the 2nd hour we can devote to this monstrous evil.

...and I'd like to hear from Lawrence Dennis on these matters, too.

Doesn't that pic say it all ?

A disgusting little puke of a cheerleader.

And let's not forget the Jeff Gannon scandle, on top of everything else that is wrong with him, Bush is a homosexual pig.

Bush isn't fit to stand in the same room with Hitler, let alone be compared to him on any level.

.

That big funnel is used to maximize the number of snipped dicks that he can fit into his mouth.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/221006doesaffect.htm

Neo-Con government mouthpieces and others are claiming that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which heralded the official end of the "great experiment" of the American democratic republic, does not affect U.S. citizens, only illegal aliens and foreign terrorists. Recent history of how terror legislation was used to target American citizens clearly indicates the legislation will be used domestically.

A coordinated effort to downplay the implications of the fact that the bill affects American citizens, in the face of extensive coverage on the part of Keith Olbermann, is underway in an attempt to offset the possible repeal of this draconian legislation.

The most recent example of a U.S. citizen being targeted using terror legislation involved BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast, who was pursued by Homeland Security and charged with unauthorized filming of a “critical national security structure,” (an Exxon Oil refinery that was readily available to anyone with an Internet connection at Google Maps), under PATRIOT Act legislation. The charge was later dropped after an activist outcry.

The recent historical precedent for U.S. citizens being charged under legislation originally passed in the name of combating non-US terrorists only, provides clear motivation for the Military Commissions Act to be used in the same way.

Since 9/11 the PATRIOT Act has been used in numerous cases involving American citizens, including strip club owners, toy store proprietors, the homeless, owners of websites, writers, artists, photographers, and common criminals.

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Therefore any legislation passed by Bush automatically applies to American citizens because, as the Washington Post reported, after 9/11 Bush announced his "parallel legal system" in which he could declare any individual on the planet an enemy combatant and order their summary execution.

"The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say."

The trick being played on the American people in falsely assuring them that they are not the target is simple to decode. The Act states that it only applies to enemy combatants yet the President and his legal advisors like Alberto Gonzales have routinely announced that the President has the power to strip Americans of citizenship and declare them to be enemy combatants. The "enemy combatant designation" was ascribed to U.S. citizen Jose Padilla who was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.

Top legal experts and scholars are nearly unanimous that the Military Commissions Act does affect American citizens.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

Professor Jonathan Turley, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University, agrees that the bill contains no provision in which American citizens are exempt from the intent of the legislation, and outlined this during a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show.

OLBERMANN: "I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, 'a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.'

"Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?"

JONATHAN TURLEY: "It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board."

OLBERMANN: "Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?"

TURLEY: "It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations. Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

More about how the US court of Appeals says we are not citizens:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/court_us_can_hold_citizens_as_enemy_combatants.html

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

Professor Jonathan Turley, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University, agrees that the bill contains no provision in which American citizens are exempt from the intent of the legislation, and outlined this during a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show.

OLBERMANN: "I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, 'a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.'

"Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?"

JONATHAN TURLEY: "It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board."

OLBERMANN: "Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?"

TURLEY: "It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations. Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

More about how the US court of Appeals says we are not citizens:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/court_us_can_hold_citizens_as_enemy_combatants.html

I know Dr. Pierce only intended for The Turner Diaries to be a novel, but it's turned out to be much more than that. It's prophetic. A jew in charge of homeland security, a racial alien in charge of the "justice" department, and bought and paid for white traitors in positions of power. And now authorized torture and indefinite detention for enemies of the state.

Dr. Pierce, Valhalla awaits us.