Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Bye, Bye Miss American Pie, er . . . Democracy. Not With a Bang, but a Whimper!

COMMENT: As noted by blogger David Seamon, the demise of American democracy took place amid the voluminous, flatulant pontification of U.S. media pundits, a profound distraction in the event.

With very little notice from politicial or media institutions and/or individuals, the National Defense Authorization Act has incorporated some features that would allow the virtual elimination of civil liberties as we have come to know them.

This as American oracles such as Hillary Clinton lecture others about their “democracy.”!

The essence of the NDAA text is this: provisions in that act will permit the government to “disappear” troublesome information and/or individuals at will and virtually without recourse on the part of the victim.

The bill was originally threatened with veto by the Obama administration, but recently endorsed for signing by the President.

“NDAA Set to Become Law: The Terror is Nearer than Ever” by David Seamon; Business Insider; 12/14/2011.

EXCERPT: It turns out that destroying the American democratic republic was easy to accomplish, historians will write someday. Simply get the three major cable news networks to blather on about useless bull**** for a few days, while legislators meet in secret behind closed doors to rush through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), and its evil twin sister, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which is a clever name for an Internet censorship bill straight out of an Orwellian nightmare. . . .

I have no idea why Congress is pushing through anti-American legislation that is not only incompetent, but openly belligerent.

I have no idea why an American media blackout on NDAA is still in effect — Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly and the other broadcast “journalists” have been disgustingly silent on what is undoubtedly the most important news story of the past decade.

The single most important news story since September 11th, 2001.

Combined, NDAA and SOPA simply destroy American democracy. That isn’t hype. That isn’t exaggeration.

Within a few days, your freedom of speech will be gone — post something controversial online, and the government can legally “disappear” it.
Annoy the government too much, or criticize Congress’ infinite wisdom and mercy, and you may find yourself in military prison for the remainder of your life, without access to a trial or attorney. Even if you’re an American citizen on US soil.

This is a brave new world. Watch what you say. Be mindful of who you associate with.

You may criticize your government within the privacy of your own home, amongst close family or friends, but do not post negative comments online. Do not assemble. Do not protest. Do not agitate. Do not give “comfort” to the “enemy.”

This is a sad day for all of us. All of our military spending, all of our fortresses and moats, and it turns out democracy was attacked from within, the historians will write someday. We didn’t even see it coming.


7 comments for “Bye, Bye Miss American Pie, er . . . Democracy. Not With a Bang, but a Whimper!”

  1. But supporters of the bill say that all those complaints are just hysterical myths:

    Friday, Dec 16, 2011 5:56 AM Central Standard Time
    Three myths about the detention bill
    By Glenn Greenwald

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

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

    Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

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

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

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

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

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 20, 2011, 2:21 pm
  2. In 50 years minorities will own the U.S., being in the majority, just as they do now in your California that you deem lost. I don’t see that as a hopeless situation, but I do see that as a hopeless situation for white suprematism in the U.S.A.

    Posted by Adam Kraus | December 21, 2011, 12:59 pm
  3. Sad & ominous news to be sure, Dave.
    However, though, I am also seeing a silver lining on the horizon as well:
    1.)Scott Walker is getting hammered by his opponents in the Badger State right now. Even some Republicans are starting to back away from him now.
    2.)Have you, by any chance, come across any news from Minnesota? The state GOP is starting to IMPLODE over there…… http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2011/12/05/33563/minnesota_gop_in_turmoil
    3.)The OWS movement is still growing.
    4.)A large number of people have come out against SOPA in recent weeks; fact is, vastly outnumbering its supporters! Hell, even Google and Yahoo! have opposed it.
    5.)NDAA opposition is growing, too. Last I checked, already 25,000 people had signed the bill.

    Things may look bleak…….and they kinda are. =( But this is our chance to REALLY start hitting hard. Let’s spread the word so more people can wake up to reality as it is. I’m ready. Are you guys? =)

    Posted by Steven l. | December 21, 2011, 2:30 pm
  4. […] Bye Bye Democracy… This entry was posted in Military-Industrial Complex, Police State, Totalitarianism and tagged CIA, Civil Liberties, Coleen Rowley, Dave Emory, FBI, NDAA 2012, Stop Online Piracy Act, Susan Lindauer. Bookmark the permalink. ← Marine Le Pen invitée de « C/Politique » sur France 5 […]

    Posted by FBI Whistleblower Coleen Rowley, Patriot Act Victim Susan Lindauer and radio personality Dave Emory on NDAA 2012 | Lys-d'Or | December 22, 2011, 1:15 pm
  5. 2007: Halliburton subsidiary KBR receives $385 Billion contract to build domestic detention camps in U.S.


    On tonight’s New Year’s Eve signing of the NDAA into law — reminiscent of George H.W. Bush’s Christmas Eve pardons of Iran-Contra criminals — these Halliburton/KBR camps are the “reservations” Mr. Obama is speaking of having tonight (as in “Indian Reservations” or “Japanese Internment Reservations”):


    1984: Rex 84 was the first plan to relocate U.S. dissidents into detention camps. This plan was drafted by NSC operative Oliver North.


    Posted by R. Wilson | December 31, 2011, 8:49 pm
  6. @R. Wilson: Definitely true about Rex 84, although I do believe it was originally targeted against so-called ‘non-whites’, aka, African-Americans and Chicanos, because of its origins in the King Alfred Plan, and I betcha most of the people targeted at first would probably be Latin American immigrants and Arabs, although I don’t doubt some black & white lefties could be thrown in as well, especially if they were involved in O.W.S. or any other similar movement.

    Posted by Steven l. | January 1, 2012, 12:57 pm
  7. Oh great, the Supreme Court appear just made its first ruling on the secret expansive eavesdropping program started after 9/11. And in a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the program cannot be challenged in court because it’s a secret program and, therefore, the plaintiffs don’t have any evidence that they were being spied upon. Big Brother’s all seeing eye prefers to avoid scrutiny:

    Supreme Court Thwarts Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance

    By David Kravets

    A divided Supreme Court halted a legal challenge Tuesday to a once-secret warrantless surveillance project that gobbles up Americans’ electronic communications, a program that Congress eventually legalized in 2008 and again in 2012.

    The 5-4 decision (.pdf) by Justice Samuel Alito was a clear victory for the President Barack Obama administration, which like its predecessor, argued that government wiretapping laws cannot be challenged in court. What’s more, the outcome marks the first time the Supreme Court decided any case touching on the eavesdropping program that was secretly employed in the wake of 9/11 by the President George W. Bush administration, and eventually codified into law twice by Congress.

    A high court majority concluded that, because the eavesdropping is done secretly, the American Civil Liberties Union, journalists and human-rights groups that sued to nullify the law have no legal standing to sue — because they have no evidence they are being targeted by the FISA Amendments Act. Some of the plaintiffs, which the court labeled “respondents,” are also journalists and among other things claimed the 2008 legislation has chilled their speech and violated their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

    The act, known as §1881, authorizes the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

    The FISA Amendments Act generally requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rubber-stamp terror-related electronic surveillance requests. The government does not have to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application.

    “Yet respondents have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Instead, respondents merely speculate and make assumptions about whether their communications with their foreign contacts will be acquired under §1881a,” Alito wrote.

    Joining Alito were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said standing should have been granted. He said that the spying, “Indeed it is a s likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen.”

    Signing the dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

    But even if the Supreme Court sided with the ACLU on Tuesday, that does not necessarily mean the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act would have been litigated. That’s because the only issue before the high court was whether the plaintiffs had the legal standing to bring the case. Because they don’t, the case is over.

    Had the justices gone the other way, the lawsuit would have returned to a New York federal courtroom where, if past is prologue, the Obama administration likely would play its trump card: an assertion of the powerful state secrets privilege that lets the executive branch effectively kill lawsuits by claiming they threaten to expose national security secrets.

    The courts largely defer to such claims. But in a rare exception in 2008, a San Francisco federal judge refused to throw out a wiretapping lawsuit against AT&T under the state secrets privilege. The AT&T lawsuit was later killed anyway, because the FISA Amendments Act also granted the phone companies retroactive legal immunity for their alleged participation in the NSA spying program.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 26, 2013, 2:50 pm

Post a comment