Egypt’s Mursi Defends Power Grab

Insists Move 'Temporary' and Aimed to Protect Constitutional Committee

AntiWar
Jason Ditz

Faced with an ever-growing backlash over last week’s power grab, Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi struggled to defend his edict, insisting that the move was “temporary” and not intended to centralize power in his hands.

Rather, in a new statement Mursi insisted that the move was meant to limit the power of the judiciary, and was primarily aimed at avoiding the “politicization” of the court system while keeping them from ousting the committee penning the new constitution.

Yet the edict went well beyond protecting the committee, claiming unilateral power for the president to do anything he deems necessary and insisting the court can’t even theoretically review anything he does. To the extent it renders the court totally powerless it would seem to limit interest in its politicization.

Making the move temporary does seem to be a key part of the edict, and assuming it remains temporary it may placate some critics. The edict only sought to define presidential power until the new constitution is written, with the assumption that the constitution itself will define them afterwards.

“Temporary” measures in the Middle East have a tendency to last for decades, however, as with the “emergency law” in place in Egypt before the revolution, which granted Mursi’s predecessor Hosni Mubarak similar unchecked power. The longer it takes to get a constitution in place, the more Egyptians are likely to bristle at the power Mursi is now claiming for himself.

The Federal Reserve, a Privately Owned Banking Cartel, Has Been Given Police Powers, with Glock 22s and Patrol Cars

Alternet
Pam Martens

By mid morning on Monday, September 17, as Occupy Wall Street protesters marched around the perimeter of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, all signs that an FRPD (Federal Reserve Police Department) existed had disappeared. The FRPD patrol cars and law enforcement officers had been replaced by NYPD patrol cars and officers. That decision may have been made to keep from drawing attention to a mushrooming new domestic police force that most Americans do not know exists.

Quietly, without fanfare or Congressional hearings, the USA Patriot Act in 2001 bestowed on the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve Banks, domestic policing powers.

Section 364 of the Act, “Uniform Protection Authority for Federal Reserve,” reads: “Law enforcement officers designated or authorized by the Board or a reserve bank under paragraph (1) or (2) are authorized while on duty to carry firearms and make arrests without warrants for any offense against the United States committed in their presence…Such officers shall have access to law enforcement information that may be necessary for the protection of the property or personnel of the Board or a reserve bank.”

The police officers are technically known as FRLEO, short for Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Officer. The system has its own police academies for training, their own patch and badges, uniforms, pistols, rifles, police cars and the power to arrest coast to coast without a warrant. They have ranks of Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and a recruitment ad campaign with the slogan: “It’s about respect and recognition from your peers. It’s you.”

According to a former St. Louis Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Training Instructor, the officers are trained on pistol, rifle, auto-rifle, sub-gun and shotgun with manufacturers encompassing Smith & Wesson, Glock, Remington and Armalite.

The FRLEOs employed by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. are considered employees of the Federal government since the Board is a government entity. Each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, as settled law under Lewis v. United States confirms, is a private corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. An email to several of the Federal Reserve Banks confirmed that they regard their FRLEOs to be privately employed by the bank.

The San Francisco Fed ran an ad for Captain Specialist, noting that “you will be charged with gathering and disseminating law enforcement intelligence information to the District.” It also noted that the individual would need to “obtain and maintain top secret clearance.” Typically, that clearance level is reserved for only the highest positions in the Federal government.

A recruitment ad for the Richmond Fed indicates their FRLEOs would be plugged into the nation’s criminal databases: “The Law Enforcement Unit has an immediate opening for a Communications Center Operator, reporting to the Center leadership team in Richmond, Virginia. The pay is $32,458 — $40,573…[the officer will query] “information from a variety of law enforcement data bases for information, wants/warrants, intelligence, driver’s license and vehicle information, etc.” The Cleveland Fed notes that the job “may include, but would not be limited to: use of deadly or non-lethal force…”

FRLEOs now even have their own Federal Reserve Policemen’s Benevolent Association, Local 385. The group’s Facebook page [3] carries the statement that it is a “government organization.” The site says the group “was established to create a fraternal organization for its membership and to act on behalf of the members as a liaison between the New Jersey State PBA and all other police agencies within the state and the country.” The connection to New Jersey likely stems from a now deceased police officer, James Rose, from Moonachie, New Jersey, who was a FRLEO in New York and helped to establish Local 385. In addition, the Regional office of the New York Fed is located in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

In addition to regular policing functions, the Federal Reserve police have been observed in airports with rifles, functioning as dignitary protection teams. Various recruitment ads confirm that this is sometimes part of the job.

Buttressing the private nature of the Federal Reserve Banks, the Maiden Lane building that the Occupy Wall Street protesters were swarming around this morning, chanting “F*** the Fed,” was purchased on February 28, 2012 by the New York Fed, which had previously been leasing the building. According to the press release the “Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) today announced that it has acquired the building at 33 Maiden Lane for $207.5 million from Merit US Real Estate Fund III, L.P. and established a new, wholly owned limited liability company called Maiden & Nassau LLC to serve as owner of the building.”

The Federal Reserve Building up for sale at 301 Rosa L. Parks Avenue in Nashville has this slogan engraved on the building: “Federal Reserve System Through Which Our Banks and Government Join Hands to Further the Enduring Prosperity of American Commerce, Industry and Agriculture.”

There is nothing in that motto that shows a concern for the average American. And that’s the problem inherent in the continuing venting of anger against Wall Street banks and their perceived crony patrons at the Fed who gave them trillions of dollars in low-cost bailout loans and then fought a court battle to keep the loans a secret. That domestic policing functions have now been added to the mix can only create more suspicions and hostility.

There is also the obvious question as to why the expense, training and potential liability of armed police would be necessary when all of the Federal Reserve Banks are in cities with large municipal police forces. With private bankers sitting on the Boards of each of these Reserve Banks, many of whom are officers of banks under criminal investigation, there is the serious need for Congressional investigation into how the Nation’s criminal databases are being used by the private sector as well as the further chilling of protest and dissent from another new sheriff in town.

Members of Congress Demand Answers for Homeland Security’s Unjust Domain Name Seizures

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Trevor Timm

This morning, a bipartisan group of Representatives, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), sent a pointed letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano protesting the recent spat of domain name seizures—executed on dubious copyright grounds—that have been censoring websites with no due process.

“Our concern centers on your Department’s methods, and the process given, when seizing the domain names of websites whose actions and content are presumed to be lawful, protected speech,” the letter said, which was also signed by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Ut.).

The Representatives’ letter focused on the case of former hip hop website Dajaz1. Dajaz1’s domain name had been seized for over a year, despite evidence that the website had lawful material, and that “many of the allegedly infringing links to copyrighted songs, and specifically the links that were the basis of the seizure order, were given to the site’s owner by artists and labels themselves” including Kanye West, Diddy, and a vice president of a major record label.

Adding to the injustice, the government refused to cooperate with Dajaz1’s attorneys for months, and sought numerous extensions of the seizure authority in secret. When the court records were finally released, it showed that the government was waiting on the RIAA to evaluate a "sampling of allegedly infringing content" and respond to other “outstanding questions.”  While the RIAA fiddled, Dajaz1 lost the right to speak and the public lost its right to read what was published there.

Finally, after a year, control over dajaz1.com was handed back to the owners with no apology, and no explanation.  It is disturbing enough that DHS has been effectively acting as the tax-funded hired gun of the content industry, but, even more horrifying, it censored the wrong targets, for no good reason, for a year.

Dajaz1’s case is far from unique, as we found out earlier this week when a similar situation happened to Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org, the popular sports streaming sites that were seized—again with no due process—back in February 2011. The sites, which have been in the midst of a court fight to return its domains, had been arguing that linking was not infringing, noting that a Spanish court had already found the sites legal. Yet the government still held onto their domain for 18 months.  On Wednesday, they again handed back their domains with no explanation. 

As we explained:

Dropping the case was, of course, the right move. The government's copyright arguments were incredibly weak (it’s pretty well-settled that linking is not infringement). Even more troubling, the seizures also captured plenty of legal and protected speech. Indeed, many (including EFF) have been making these arguments for well over a year. The real question is why it took so long. 

We also demanded the government should explain why it reversed its position, and provide a clear policy rationale so websites around the world could assess their risk for unexplained and unjustified seizures.

The Representatives want answers to the same questions. At the end of their letter, they ask seven specific questions about DHS’ policy, their rationale, and what procedures they plan on implementing so websites’ rights aren’t trampled on again. You can read the full letter here.

EFF is encouraged that Congress is taking an increased interest in making sure First Amendment protected speech is not censored on the Internet due to draconian copyright policy, and we look forward to the Justice Deparment and Homeland Security’s official response.  

Congress Agrees To Expand Presidential Power

Personal Liberty
Sam Rolley

President Barack Obama signs a bill into law earlier
this month. Staff Secretary Doug Kramer prepares
the next bill for the President's signature.

Political polarization is supposedly at an all-time high as Americans enjoy a tedious election-season that the populace is told pits big government, socialist values that would impress the likes of Karl Marx against small government, pro-business ideals that should satisfy any conservative.

So polarized is the political landscape that legislators are unable to produce a budget for the United States because of sheer gridlock, the conversation about social issues has denigrated into screaming on both sides and it is political heresy to come to agreement with your political opponent no matter what heights of idiocy you must reach in proving your dissident.

But lawmakers recently and oddly came to agreement that the power of the President should be met with less political opposition, at least when it comes to making certain appointments.

As Americans have been busy trying to make sense of the upcoming Presidential election, Congress quietly agreed on a matter of importance: making sure that, without Senate approval and without retribution, 170 people can be pointed to powerful positions by whoever assumes the Presidency.
The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 — sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) — eliminates the need to obtain Senate confirmation for about 170 executive branch posts. The act was passed by the Senate last summer, met House approval last month and was signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this month.

The legislation’s sponsors claim it simply reduces the amount of time it takes for a newly elected President to make low-level appointments. But the list includes top public-policy positions within the following Departments: Defense, State, Labor, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs. A full list can be viewed here.
Lieberman said of the legislation:

This bipartisan legislation represents the Senate at its best. A problem was identified, and Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft a solution. Now, future Administrations will be able to get their teams in place more quickly, and the Senate will be able focus its time and energy on the most important Executive Branch appointments. In no way does this bill erode the Senate’s role of “advice and consent.” Rather, it strengthens the Senate’s power by freeing us up to concentrate on nominees who will actually shape national policy.

Despite Lieberman’s assertion that many of these positions do little in the way of shaping public policy, Americans concerned about the growing power of the Presidency might argue that lessening the vetting process is just another step in the direction of complete top-down political control in the Nation.

Obama Seizes Control of All Communications Systems With Executive Order

Occupy Corporatism 
Suzanne Posnell

President Obama has usurped all available forms of communication for use and discretion of the US government. Under executive order (EO) , Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions, Obama has enabled the executive branch to control communications under all “possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.”

Radio and wired communications systems “of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.”

Cellular phone corporations like Sprint owned Boost Mobile have released messages to their customers concerning the US government’s allocation of their phone communications at the whim of the President. In a text message to customers, Boost Mobile said that: “. . . you can receive national and local emergency alerts directly on your phone.”

Back in 2011, Hillary Clinton admitted that the US government, via the mainstream media, is losing their “information war” with the American public. As alternative media becomes more prevalent, the propaganda must be taken up a notch in order to keep the masses onboard with the agendas of the US government.

Danny Schechter, filmmaker and investigative journalist, explains that MSM cannot compete with the alternative media. Schechter says that “America feels on the defensive because it can no longer” monopolize the thoughts of citizens domestically and abroad. Since the US government thinks “its point of view is the only point of view” these new news outlets are “extremely damaging” to the US continual purveyance of propaganda.




The Presidential Alert was announced in August of 2011, wherein the Commissioners for the FCC required that television, radio stations and cable systems (including satellites) will redirect broadcasting if the President wants to “alert Americans of impending danger”.

This EO explains that the establishment of a NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (CEC) will “serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters”. The CEC will answer to the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and advise Obama on the “prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP functions”.

Holder scandal may be US attempt to destabilize Mexico

PressTV

An analyst says the trafficking of guns by the US to violent cartels in Mexico in a secret operation has resulted in some of those guns entering into Arizona.

Press TV has interviewed Wayne Madsen, investigative journalist from Washington, about the ramifications of the US running guns across the Mexican border and being caught doing it; and also about the possibility that US Attorney General Eric Holder, voted by Congress as being in contempt of Congress, will be pursued through independent prosecution.

What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: It’s been said that the Holder case is meant to distract Americans from bigger issues at hand such as the economy and never ending wars etc. Do you agree or is this a lot more significant?

Madsen: Well, I think one of the interests in this case may be misplaced somewhat. Of course, the Obama White House says this was a political move, but… and we have to understand it is the Justice Department, which would have to bring charges for this contempt of Congress vote against the attorney general.

Well, the attorney general is the head of the Justice Department so it’s rather doubtful that he is going to appoint a prosecutor to have himself prosecuted.

So, this is actually more of a symbolic vote by the House. They knew this wasn’t going to go anywhere, but there’s another issue.

The issue is that anytime the National Rifle Association thinks that guns are an issue and it could be restricted, they have their people in Congress vote for their legislation. So we saw some 17 Democrats vote with Republicans to cite Holder for contempt of Congress - I think only two Republicans joined the Democrats in opposition.

But we also know that there are a lot of strange things going on in Mexico with the two major drug cartels, Las Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel and the fact is that guns from the US wound up in the hands of these cartels.

There’s a conspiracy theory amongst the NRA that this is a means by the Obama administration to try to restrict guns, but there’s also another thought that this is an attempt to destabilize Mexico.

There’s a big presidential election in Mexico on Sunday and the mere fact that we could see a return of the PRI Party candidates, which ruled Mexico for decades, there could be much more to what’s going on with the running of guns from the US into Mexico.


And I’m told from sources in Arizona that guns are coming back across the border from Mexico into states like Arizona that share a border with Mexico… So I’m wondering whether there’s an intelligence operation going on and that is why Mr. Holder decided to stonewall because his record shows that he will protect the interests of all US intelligence operations and this may be an attempt by the US to destabilize Mexico.

Press TV: I want to pick up on your point about the Justice Department. Doesn’t the fact that Holder’s case will be referred to prosecutors under him unearth a vital flaw, maybe, in the judicial system? It seems the US attorney general is in a sense above the law as no prosecutor would want to jeopardize his or her own position.

Madsen: Absolutely. And this is why many times we saw independent special councils or independent prosecutors named, to get that individual out from any kind of coercion from the attorney general.

We saw during Watergate with the independent Watergate prosecutor; we saw it again in the move against President Clinton that ended up in his impeachment - of course, he was found not guilty by the Senate. But we have seen these special prosecutors appointed because of this very issue.

It’s always stated that the attorney general is not a political position. It’s somehow different from the other members of the Cabinet, but we’ve seen from past history with the Attorney General John Mitchell under Richard Nixon and Edwin Meese under Reagan that these attorneys general have been highly political and in fact Attorney General Mitchell went to prison because of his activity during the Watergate scandal.


So, yes it does point out a flaw in the Independent Counsel Statute, which is now not in force. It was always used as a means to prevent the politicization of the Justice Department in these types of matters.

Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Over Fast And Furious Fiasco

ZeroHedge
Tyler Durden

If there was any confusion whether Obama is in fact Bush, or maybe even Nixon, this has now been squashed. From Fox:

President Obama has granted an 11th-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against Holder by Republicans in the House. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to forge ahead with its meeting on the contempt resolution anyway.

Holder, whose guilt is implicitly proven by this action, is now likely absolved of everything as the TOTUS has effectively onboarded all of his "balance sheet risk." And why not. The Fed does it for everyone else every day.
As a reminder, from the WSJ:

A showdown Wednesday in the House between Attorney General Eric Holder and Rep. Darrell Issa comes down to this: Who will blink first in a dispute over Justice Department documents Mr. Issa is demanding related to the botched Fast and Furious gun-trafficking probe?

California Republican Mr. Issa is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and he has called a 10 a.m. meeting of his panel to vote on a resolution to sanction Mr. Holder with contempt of Congress. The two men held a meeting Tuesday that lasted only 20 minutes. And from their accounts, it has become a game of chicken, with each side insisting the other act first to resolve the standoff.

Mr. Holder said Mr. Issa rejected his offer to provide documents because the lawmaker wouldn't agree that they would fulfill the subpoena, effectively ending the contempt threat. Mr. Issa said the attorney general didn't come prepared to provide documents and that the contempt threat can't be removed until the documents are produced.

At issue are Justice Department documents that Mr. Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) have sought and that the department resisted turning over in the congressional investigation into Fast and Furious. The department said the documents reflected internal deliberation or were related to continuing criminal investigations and therefore weren't subject to congressional subpoena.

If a majority of the committee votes for contempt Wednesday, the matter then could be taken up by the full House. If the House votes in favor, then a contempt citation could be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Barack Obama who is in Mr. Holder's chain of command. And then things become legally more uncertain. It isn't clear if Congress can compel an executive-branch official to prosecute the attorney general. In the Bush administration, the House voted to hold White House officials in contempt in a similar documents dispute and the Bush-appointed attorney general ordered the U.S. attorney to disregard it. The matter was eventually settled with the production of documents before a civil-court battle ran its course.

The main issue in Fast and Furious remains the contention by Messrs. Issa and Grassley that the Justice Department is improperly withholding documents. The department has turned over thousands of documents—about 7,000 or 8,000, depending on which side is counting—and says it is being forthcoming. By comparison, the inspector general has had access to about 80,000 documents, including those the department has declined to share with lawmakers.

...

The matter has become a political fight, with little real impact on Mr. Holder, who is expected to serve out his tenure through the end of the current administration in January. Democrats accuse Republicans of using the contempt measure as a political tool against Mr. Holder and the president. Democrats did some of the same against President George W. Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who resigned under pressure in a controversy over the firings of U.S. attorneys.

And now back to your regularly scheduled farce of a democratic republic.

New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness

Activist Post
Brandon Turbeville

In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.

Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.

The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recent Libyan adventure and the foregone conclusion of a Syrian intervention, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.

Late Friday Executive Order Usurps Spending Authority from U.S. House of Representatives

WhatReallyHappened
White House

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

Webmaster's Commentary (Mike Rivero): 

As dry and obfuscated as this is, you probably need to read it all the way through. Much of this is a rehash of claims to authorities made by previous Presidents under a series of Executive Orders collectively called the FEMO E.O.s. 

So, has the President taken over the country? Technically, no. What this order states is that the President will be prepared to take over the nation in the event of a National Emergency, but again, this is not a new concept as it already occurs in prior E.O.s.

Part II assigns direct control over the nation's assets to various cabinet positions under that national emergency, but again this is merely a clarification of earlier power-grabs.
So, why now, and for what reason?

Although couched in terms of National Defense, I take special note of Part III, which sets forth several fiscal authorities not previously mentioned in the earlier Presidential E.O.s. The authorities set forth include direct purchase by the government of assets, loans and loan guarantees, subsidy payments, and so forth. These are normally authorities which would originate in legislation in the House, as they involve spending. The end result of this E.O. is that Obama is usurping the spending authority of the U.S. House of Representatives. So, while presented as a proactive plan to deal with the coming invasion of Iran, Part III suggests that the real purpose of this E.O. is to prepare for the coming collapse of Greece and the E.U. by transferring spending authority to the White House ahead of the collapse of the dollar.

Obama and Boener to Cut Social Security and Lower Taxes for Rich

Washington Post
Lori Montgomery
Paul Kane

President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner rushed Thursday to strike agreement on a far-reaching plan to reduce the national debt but faced a revolt from Democrats furious that the accord appeared to include no immediate provision to raise taxes.

With 12 days left until the Treasury begins to run short of cash, Obama and Boehner (R-Ohio) were still pursuing the most ambitious plan to restrain the national debt in at least 20 years. Talks focused on sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to cherished health and retirement programs aimed at saving roughly $3 trillion over the next decade.

More savings would be generated through an overhaul of the tax code that would lower personal and corporate income tax rates while eliminating or reducing an array of popular tax breaks, such as the deduction for home mortgage interest. But the talks envisioned no specific tax increases as part of legislation to lift the debt limit, and the tax rewrite would be postponed until next year.

Democrats reacted with outrage as word filtered to Capitol Hill, saying the emerging agreement appeared to violate their pledge not to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as Obama’s promise not to make deep cuts in programs for the poor without extracting some tax concessions from the rich.

When “we heard these reports of these mega-trillion-dollar cuts with no revenues, it was like Mount Vesuvius. . . . Many of us were volcanic,” said Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.).

White House budget director Jacob J. Lew denied that a deal without taxes was in the works. “We’ve been clear revenues have to be part of any agreement,” he told reporters.

After a lunchtime meeting between Lew and Senate Democrats, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made no attempt to hide his anger, telling reporters that his caucus would oppose the “potential agreement” because it appeared to include no clear guarantee of increased revenue.
“The president always talked about balance, that there had to be some fairness in this, that this can’t be all cuts. There has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue and cuts. My caucus agrees with that,” Reid said. “I hope that the president sticks with that. I’m confident that he will.”

Five Reasons to Impeach Obama

WarIsaCrime
David Swanson

In little more than two years President Barack Obama has violated the U.S. Constitution by:

1) Ordering military attacks on sovereign nations without Congressional authorization.

2) Issuing Executive Orders for the extra-judicial assassination of U.S. citizens in violation of guarantees of due process.

3) Presiding over military, paramilitary and intelligence service use of torture in violation of prohibitions against cruel and unusual treatment.

4) Ordering and attempting to assassinate foreign heads of state.

5) Obstructing justice by failing or refusing to investigate credible allegations of torture brought against the previous administration.

President Obama is the current occupant of the throne to the imperial presidency. The first four items above apply to Mr. Obama himself, while the last applies to alleged crimes that occurred during the presidency of George W. Bush, with substantial supporting evidence, that Mr. Obama has neglected to prosecute.

The founders understood the need to disperse concentrations of power and divided layers of restrictions on power between the three branches of government. A review of U.S. military engagements since WWII shows that every president since FDR has exceeded their Constitutional mandates—with Congress' unofficial cooperation. But Presidents Bush and Obama went far beyond their predecessors with Obama's excesses even worse than Bush's.

Obama's unprovoked assault on Libya is where we need to draw the line on executive overreach.

Click here to send a letter to the House Judiciary Committee demanding impeachment proceedings against Mr. Obama.

As the founders understood: Give presidents an inch and they will take a mile, as evidenced by the fact that Mr. Obama has secretly deployed U.S. Special Forces in upwards of 75 sovereign countries.

Congress is not without blame. By appropriating astronomical amounts of money to the so-called 'war on terror'—approaching $4 trillion since the September 11, 2001 attacks—Congress has put the cost of imperialism on the American public's credit card without taking the responsibility of declaring war. Congress has been astute in grandstanding, maneuvering and laying blame, but short on officially declaring itself on matters of life and death.

Click Here to send a letter your Congress member about impeaching President Obama.
Last month Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department's review of over 100 previously dismissed claims of U.S. torture of detainees had yielded but two cases meriting a full investigation. Everyone else, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenant —the high level officials who ordered the torture—go scot free.
If past torturers are not prosecuted, then future torturers will feel free to pursue their despicable trade, knowing that they probably will not be prosecuted either.

Click here to tell Attorney General Holder to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution by investigating the masterminds of torture.

The United Nations, General Barry McCaffrey, Human Rights Watch and many others have all documented U.S. torture. General Taguba, who oversaw the official investigation into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib said: "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Mr. Holder says it is time to move forward, not look backward. But people cannot be tried for crimes they may commit. It is only possible to try people for crimes they did commit—in the past. So the Attorney General's position is not only nonsensical, it constitutes obstruction of justice.

Click here to tell Attorney General Holder to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution by investigating the masterminds of torture.

Imagine if there were a known terrorist who was suspected in blowing up American buildings and the president and attorney general knew where to find that terrorist but their response was: "Those crimes happened in the past. Forget about it! We need to look forward."

Their heads would roll.
Support VotersForPeace and take a stand against injustice.

It is far from time to throw up our hands in despair. The 'Arab Spring' teaches us that even in the most repressive regimes, power resides with the people. Our forebears left us all the tools required to effect changes we seek. It is time to insist that Congress send a strong message to President Obama, President Bush—and all presidents who come after them—that the days of Congress looking the other way while imperial presidents shred the Constitution are over.

Please send a letter to Congress saying enough is enough.

Thank you for all that you do.

VotersForPeace

New backup plan would let Obama raise debt ceiling without congressional OK

Chicago Tribune
Lisa Mascaro

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaks to the media after meeting with
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, right, about the debt limit.

Editor's Note:  As Suggested by Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com:

Raising the debt limit is not necessary. Congress has the right to revoke the Federal Reserve's charter - at any time.

Call or email your local congressman and ask them,

"Why does the government insist on borrowing money from outside banks when Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution allows the government to simply print its own money?"

Contact the Whitehouse:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact 

Contact Congress:

http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/p/complete-contact-list-for-us-congress_15.html


WASHINGTON — A plan by the Senate's two top leaders to allow President Obama to raise the debt limit without congressional approval is emerging as the most likely strategy to avoid a looming federal default.

The plan being drafted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would lock in roughly $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years — a figure considerably smaller than Republican leaders or President Obama had been seeking.

Administration officials have said they still would prefer a more sweeping deal on the deficit, but they signaled the idea would be acceptable to Obama.

Conservatives, particularly in the House, seem likely to oppose it. But with efforts to deliver a larger deficit-reduction deal still stalemated, the new plan, which builds on a proposal put forward earlier in the week by McConnell, could provide a way out of a dead end that has become politically and economically perilous.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated such "last-ditch" efforts may become more palatable in the time ahead.

"What may look like something less than optimal today, if we're unable to get to an agreement, might look pretty good," Boehner said.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House majority leader, toned his hard-line stance Thursday, saying, "There is a dose of pragmatism in all that we do."

The plan came as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that time for debate was running out. The nation's bond-rating, and with it the financial stability of the nation, hinge on the ability of Congress and the White House to approve more borrowing before the government begins running out of cash on Aug. 2, he said.

"We're running out of time," Geithner told reporters after a private lunch meeting with Senate Democrats.

Underscoring Geithner's warning, the government of China, which is one of the largest holders of U.S. debt, issued a statement urging American officials to act "responsibly."

Congressional leaders met at the White House for a fifth straight day Thursday. There were no plans for a session on Friday, but Obama gave congressional leaders 24 to 36 hours to evaluate options, and planned a news conference Friday morning. The president said he and his staff were available and willing to meet over the weekend.

"It's decision time," Obama told those meeting at the White House, according to a Democratic official familiar with the session and who would describe it only condition of anonymity. "We need concrete plans to move this forward," the president said.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who was criticized after confronting Obama during a meeting Wednesday, was more restrained at Thursday's talks. The Democratic official said the meeting was "cordial."

10 Congressmen Bring Obama to Federal Court

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services

A dead Marine and a silent sheriff

...And an illustration of the state of Tucson journalism:

William Heuisler
Examiner

On May 5th a Pima County Sheriff’s special weapons team malfunctioned asymmetrically:
SWAT arrived, broke into a private home, and shot a homeowner in less than a minute, but medical attention for that same homeowner was delayed for more than an hour. Why the haste...and the delay?

Police serve and protect. Most law enforcement officers serve the public unselfishly and with a day-to-day heroism matched only in our Armed Services. The May 5th unbalanced actions and reactions of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department were not due to the individual officers.
Police militarization killed Marine veteran, Jose Guerena.

Misuse of military-style special weapons teams to serve search warrants on residences of veterans and gun owners has become common. Traditionally, detectives served daylight residential search warrants quietly, politely and with as little disruption as possible. Although militarized raids are supposedly safer for officers, the new tactics endanger the people police should be protecting. On May 5th many police bullets were found to have passed through neighbors’ homes.

 During the May 5th assault, unnecessary speed prevented communication with civilians. Videos and reports show no communication at all between Deputies and Jose Guerena in the 45 seconds before shooting began. Why not?

 Case #110503248  (Search warrant - 7100 block of south Redwater Street in Tucson). Supervisor - Sergeant Krygier’s 11-page statement can be viewed as a PDF in 5/27 Arizona Daily Star.

Sergeant Krygier excerpts:
Page 3, line 27

 “As I got out of the Bearcat, uh, Almaraz, I think, left the siren going too long, ‘cause we don’t wanna keep it going, because obviously then we can’t hear.
Page 11, line 17

“…the siren had gone on for too long.” (Echavarri, 2011)

A 45 second video (Echavarri, 2011) shows the siren drowning out police commands until six seconds before the door was breached. Shooting began almost immediately. Assaulting a private home like an enemy fortress is senseless. Needless haste and sirens are counterproductive. Those decisions – and delaying medical aid – are policy and training.

After the Jan. 8th Jared Loughner murders, Sheriff Dupnik was full of angry accusations. Now his policies have caused the death of a citizen during service of a search warrant. Could the Sheriff explain why a siren was used? Or why deputies were so quick to shoot and so slow to allow medics (already on the scene) to render aid to a Marine veteran?

Sheriff Dupnik is ultimately responsible. For three weeks he has been uncharacteristically silent.

 Echavarri, F. (2011). Arizona Daily Star. Complex drug probe triggered SWAT raid. Related documents (PDF: statements of officers involved in SWAT raid). http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_ffd3cd6b-6564-59a9-8b43-a1635ae66bd4.html

When Government Fails or Refuses to Act. It is up to us to Restore the Republic

Lone Star

Potential "Balkanization" could shape this new map if
widespread consensus fails with a proper overthrow.

The truth is if we are waiting for the ballot box to make those fundamental changes in government. I would not hold my breath waiting for it to happen. We have been trying for many election cycles to put the right people in office to reverse course of our nation or state only to be burned. We can not wait for the next election because time is crucial and they highjacked counting the vote with Electronic voting machines so politicians can maintain power.

                The people we sent to Washington and Austin Texas completely ignores the will of the people. They are following the agenda of a power completely alien to the people and not in the interest of the State. When the people we elected had the opportunity to do the right thing with overwhelming support from the people.They cave in, get weak knees and compromise with the special interest. We can not get the courts to rule in favor of the Constitution when it comes to our privacy and being secure in our persons. They decide in favor of a corrupt police state. The oath of office is for those in government from local up to the top people in power. That oath is just a ceremonial right of passage that really has no meaning to them.

                 We wanted the debt ceiling not raised in Washington and the people we sent to stop the spending caved in. Congress ignores its responsibility when the President is starting wars around the world who have not provoked any attack on us or threatened our national security.  Congress cares nothing about keeping the executive Branch in check on his power to wage war or the corruption rampant in the White House. These war or police actions are costing this nation to the point of bankruptcy.When it would serve the congress well to do the right thing. They do the opposite. They reinstated the Patriot act and expanded the war powers of the President. They are not listening to the will of the people.

                 In Texas were I live. I think what happened last week was the last straw that broke the camels back.Because when the State Senate caved into the demands of the Federal Government if they passed a bill the Texans overwhelmingly supported that reenforced state law prohibiting the TSA form groping Texans as a condition to board a plane. This agency violated Texas state law. They are charged with a felony. No one in the State government is defending Texas from the onslaught of the Federal government on Texas.The EPA shutting down our oil fields and drilling offshore.The unwillingness and the lack of security securing the southern border.The state is rolling over to tyranny without a fight. There is no leadership taking a stand against this illegal incursion in the State of Texas against a bully out of Washington DC.

                 All confidence is lost in Texas.There are calls for a convention to be formed to discuss the dissolving or dismissing the present State government holding elected office with a delegation from each county going to represent each county. This is a fail safe measure under the Texas state Constitution when the state government becomes destructive to the people. When the State legislator no long serves for the benefit of the people in Texans.It is the right of Texans to alter, or abolish the present form of government. Activist in the state of Texas are arranging getting a delegation from each county in Texas to hold a convention to alter and abolish as it is the right in the Texas state Constitution. Texans will make their own way if the government is standing in people's way. Texans will find a way if the government will not. When push come to shove Texans will throw out the parasites of the state and not submit to tyranny. Sam Houston Stated” Texas will lift its head again and stand among the nations".

TSA Threatens To Cancel All Flights Out Of Texas If ‘Groping Bill’ Passed

Forbes

Upset about invasive screening techniques at the airport, the Lone Star State was considering a bill that would make a TSA patdown that involves touching “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person including through the clothing” a misdemeanor, allowing Texas law enforcement to arrest TSA officials and charge them with sexual harassment. It would have meant that TSA officials could be fined $4,000 and spend up to a year in jail for doing their jobs of feeling up prospective fliers.

The Transportation Security Administration was not happy when the bill was passed in the Texas House of Representatives, blogging in response that Texas is barred by the U.S. Constitution from regulating the federal government.

On Tuesday, the bill was set to be voted on in the Senate. This called for more of a response than a simple blog post. Federal government officials descended on the Capitol to hand out a letter (embedded below) from the Texas U.S. Attorney letting senators know that if they passed the bill, the TSA would probably have to cancel all flights out of Texas. As much as they love their state, the idea of shutting down airports and trapping people in Texas was scary enough to get legislators to reconsider their support for the groping bill…

Republican Dan Patrick, who was the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, withdrew it when he realized he would not have the votes he needed to pass it. “There was a time in this state, there was a time in our history, where we stood up to the federal government and we did not cower to rules and policies that invaded the privacy of Texans,” he said with regret, reports the Texas Tribune. No last stand for Texas this week.

The letter from U.S. attorney John Murphy said Texas could not pass a statute that conflicts with federal law. If it had, the TSA would have sought an emergency stay and until that had been granted, would have had to shut down Texas airports as it “could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

“Naturally, Texans didn’t take to well to being threatened in that manner,” said Rep. David Simpson, the author of the bill, in a written statement.
They may not like it, but it worked.

TSA Letter to Texas Lawmakers over the 'groping' bill

Obama breaks War Powers Act

Is Obama about to break the law?

Dana Bash

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama may be on the brink of breaking the law.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which makes Friday the 60-day deadline.

Inaction is angering lawmakers from both the left and the right who rarely agree on anything.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, tells CNN he believes Obama is trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States."

"He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law," Sherman said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, concurs.

"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people," Paul told CNN.

He called it "appalling" and a "terrible precedent" to engage in military action without the people's representatives -- Congress -- debating it.

To be sure, presidents in both parties often ignored another part of the War Powers Act -- that the commander-in-chief should get congressional approval before any military action.

Still, in recent years, President Bush did seek and receive congressional authority for Afghanistan and Iraq prior to launching those missions.

But it is virtually unprecedented for a president to continue a mission beyond 60 days without a resolution from Congress.

"Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors," Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway wrote this week in the Washington Post.

The only thing that comes close is President Clinton's military effort in Kosovo.

He failed to get congressional approval before the 60-day deadline was up. His administration argued that Congress had effectively authorized the mission by approving money for it, and the Kosovo conflict lasted 78 days.

The Obama administration doesn't have that option with Libya, because the Pentagon is using existing money. Congress never specifically funded the mission.

Now, the administration is trying to figure out what to do.

"We are actively reviewing our role going forward. Throughout, the president has been mindful of the provisions of the War Powers Resolution," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently testified before Congress. "He has acted in a manner consistent with it. He will continue to do so."

The War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 because of concerns about excess executive power in Vietnam. Congress approved it over President Nixon's veto.

Angry lawmakers in both parties say part of the problem now is that their own congressional leaders are not raising a stink about Obama's failure to come to Congress about Libya.

"Very few people are talking about this; they're just letting the president do whatever he wants, and I think that's Congress abdicating the rule of law and abdicating constitutional restraints that he should obey," Paul said.

Paul and five of his GOP Senate colleagues are thinking about taking this to the Supreme Court, which has never formally ruled on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested no urgency to force the president to comply with the War Powers Act when it comes to Libya.

"The administration has done a good job of keeping Congress informed about operations in Libya. U.S. operations appear to be limited and intermittent, but we are examining whether further Senate action is needed," said Jon Summers, Reid's spokesman.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat, says congressional leaders in both parties are letting this go and shirking responsibility because they don't want to have to take a tough vote on whether to give the president authority for military action in Libya.

"Americans are not of one mind on this, and some of my colleagues would just assume not do their job because this is a difficult part of it," Sherman said.

Some constitutional and legal experts are watching the president's moves carefully, and are preparing to say R.I.P to the War Powers Act.

Ackerman and Hathaway wrote on the same in the Washington Post op-ed:

"If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate war making."

Unchecked Executive War Power Could Slip Through the House

ACLU

Tucked inside the National Defense Authorization Act, being marked up by the House Armed Services Committee this week, is a hugely important provision that hasn't been getting a lot of attention — a brand new authorization for a worldwide war.

This stealth provision was added to the bill by the committee's chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), but has a bit of a history. It was first proposed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008 after the Bush administration lost the Boumediene v. Bush case, in which the Supreme Court decided that federal courts would subject the administration's asserted law of war basis to hold Guantanamo detainees to searching review. An idea that may have originally been intended to bolster the Bush administration's basis for holding Guantanamo detainees is now being promoted as an authorization of a worldwide war — and could become the single biggest ceding of unchecked war authority to the executive branch in modern American history.

The current authorization of war provided the constitutional authority for the executive branch to go to war in Afghanistan. Subsequently, it has reportedly been invoked by the executive branch much more broadly to also use military force in Yemen and elsewhere, to justify torture and abuse of detainees, to eavesdrop and spy on American citizens without warrants, and to imprison people captured far from any battlefield without charge or trial.

Before Congress this week, the proposed authorization of a worldwide war goes much further, however, allowing war wherever there are terrorism suspects in any country around the world without an expiration date, geographical boundaries or connection to the 9/11 attacks or any other specific harm or threat to the United States. There have been no hearings on the provision, nor has its necessity been explained by Rep. McKeon or anyone else in Congress.

The idea that Congress is about to pass new authority for a worldwide war as we're trying to ramp down our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan is starting to get attention. We're hoping that the House Armed Serviced Committee, and the full House, will reconsider this troubling and dangerous provision. We'll keep you updated as this troubling provision progresses, but you can help now by telling your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority.

Petraeus to CIA Completes Cheney’s Dream, Consolidates Intelligence Within Pentagon

Firedoglake
Jim White

Today is the day that my worst fears will be realized, and the propaganda machine that has been mercilessly promoting the career of David Petraeus will achieve his nomination to be Director of Central Intelligence.

Aside from the horrible nature of this move in putting a blatantly political operator into a highly visible position from which he can consolidate his credentials for an eventual presidential campaign (see Spencer Ackerman for a very different take on this aspect), this move can be seen as finally completing Dick Cheney’s dream of moving virtually all intelligence functions into the Pentagon. Back when Michael Hayden was nominated to head CIA, the ongoing Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)-CIA turf war was noted:

What worries some experts, however, is a shift in the balance of power within the US intelligence infrastructure as the CIA is weakened and the Pentagon expands its role. For one thing, the Pentagon’s intelligence activities largely escape congressional scrutiny. ”Rumsfeld and Cambone claim that everything they do is a military operation,” says Richard Clarke, the former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, ”[and] that therefore nothing that they do should have oversight by the House and Senate intelligence committees. But they are doing things that are clearly intelligence.”

It is precisely this ability to “escape congressional scrutiny” that has driven the move to consolidate intelligence functions within the Pentagon. Here is more from Jeremy Scahill on how this was brought about:

While JSOC has long played a central role in US counterterrorism and covert operations, military and civilian officials who worked at the Defense and State Departments during the Bush administration described in interviews with The Nation an extremely cozy relationship that developed between the executive branch (primarily through Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) and JSOC. During the Bush era, Special Forces turned into a virtual stand-alone operation that acted outside the military chain of command and in direct coordination with the White House. Throughout the Bush years, it was largely General McChrystal who ran JSOC. “What I was seeing was the development of what I would later see in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Special Operations forces would operate in both theaters without the conventional commander even knowing what they were doing,” said Colonel Wilkerson. “That’s dangerous, that’s very dangerous. You have all kinds of mess when you don’t tell the theater commander what you’re doing.”

Wilkerson said that almost immediately after assuming his role at the State Department under Colin Powell, he saw JSOC being politicized and developing a close relationship with the executive branch. He saw this begin, he said, after his first Delta Force briefing at Fort Bragg. “I think Cheney and Rumsfeld went directly into JSOC. I think they went into JSOC at times, perhaps most frequently, without the SOCOM [Special Operations] commander at the time even knowing it. The receptivity in JSOC was quite good,” says Wilkerson. “I think Cheney was actually giving McChrystal instructions, and McChrystal was asking him for instructions.” He said the relationship between JSOC and Cheney and Rumsfeld “built up initially because Rumsfeld didn’t get the responsiveness. He didn’t get the can-do kind of attitude out of the SOCOM commander, and so as Rumsfeld was wont to do, he cut him out and went straight to the horse’s mouth. At that point you had JSOC operating as an extension of the [administration] doing things the executive branch–read: Cheney and Rumsfeld–wanted it to do. This would be more or less carte blanche. You need to do it, do it. It was very alarming for me as a conventional soldier.”

The key thing to note here is how Cheney bypassed McChrystal’s direct commander in SOCOM to dictate McChrystal’s actions. At least in regard to when those actions were in Iraq, it should be noted that McChrystal’s field commander there was none other than David Petraeus. I think Wilkerson is wrong here when he claims that McChrystal was acting without the knowledge of the field commander.

  For McChrystal to be carrying out “rogue” operations at the direct command of the Vice President and bypassing his SOCOM commander, it seems inconceivable that Petraeus could not have been aware of what was happening. It seems most likely that Petraeus was both aware of what was going on and approved of it, since he is often seen as crediting McChrystal and his night raids for their effects in Iraq and then in Afghanistan. This means that Petraeus had to be aware of, and approved, Cheney’s actions that were designed to bypass congressional scrutiny of actions that would have been subject to oversight had they taken place through the CIA.

In today’s New York Times article about Petraeus’ nomination, we see that the blurring of the lines between intelligence and military functions already is almost complete:

The result is that American military and intelligence operatives are at times virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Some members of Congress have complained that this new way of war allows for scant debate about the scope and scale of military operations. In fact, the American spy and military agencies operate in such secrecy now that it is often hard to come by specific information about the American role in major missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya and Yemen.

The operations have also created tension with important allies like Pakistan, while raising fresh questions about whether spies and soldiers deserve the same legal protections.
Officials acknowledge that the lines between soldiering and spying have blurred. “It’s really irrelevant whether you call it a covert action or a military special operation,” said Dennis C. Blair, a retired four-star admiral and a former director of national intelligence. “I don’t really think there is any distinction.”

I’m sure Dick Cheney approves of Obama’s move to put Petraeus in charge of the CIA, because it is clear that Petraeus fully subscribes to Cheney’s vision of a Pentagon in control of the most important intelligence functions, fully protected from congressional oversight.