When the U.S.
No-one anywhere any longer has any rights under the constitution. You know, you can absorb that idea without it smacking you in the face like this carefully crafted argument does.
We all thought W was so clueless and tongue-tied. But he simply and concisely paraphrased this whole thing: "You're either with us, or agin' us."
And... "The constitution is only a god-damned piece of paper."
Excellent article Mr. Pierce.
Few published pieces are scarier.
If one combines this data:
"As described on the NSLJ website, the Editor-in-Chief from 2014-2015 has broad experience in homeland and national security programs from work at both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security and currently serves (at the time of publication of Bradford’s article) as the Deputy Director for the Office of Preparedness Integration and Coordination at FEMA. A U.S. government official in other words."
With this data:
"Significantly; Bradford was articulating precepts of the “U.S. common law of war” promoted by Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins because nothing Bradford advocated was inconsistent with William Whiting’s guidance to Union Generals. Except Whiting went even further and advised that judges in the Union states who “impeded” the military in any way by challenging their detentions were even greater “public enemies” than Confederate soldiers were."
The bastards ARE getting FEMA camps ready. It's not sci-fi. They just work through stealth in a manner that lends itself to gradual accommodation. Gradual accommodation to full-out martial law which is an inversion of all TRUE laws inasmuch as law exists to protect citizens and Civil Liberties.
There is no such thing as "the law of war" since war annihilates law along with all of its underlying rationales, as thus:
"Immediately after the Civil War, when it was freshest in their minds, the Supreme Court had this to say about martial law in Ex Parte Milligan: “What is ordinarily called martial law is no law at all. Wellington, in one of his despatches from Portugal, in 1810, in his speech on the Ceylon affair, so describes it. Let us call the thing by its right name; it is not martial law, but martial rule. And when we speak of it, let us speak of it as abolishing all law, and substituting the will of the military commander, and we shall give a true idea of the thing, and be able to reason about it with a clear sense of what we are doing.”
Untreated paranoia meets Mars Rules for a toxic combination:
"Therefore, according to Bradford, Islamists have identified “force multipliers with cultural knowledge of, social proximity to, and institutional capacity to attrit American political will. These critical nodes form an interconnected ‘government-media-academic complex’ (‘GMAC’) of public officials, media, and academics who mould mass opinion on legal and security issues . . . .”
"Consequently, Bradford argues, within this triumvirate, “it is the wielders of combat power within these nodes — journalists, officials, and law professors — who possess the ideological power to defend or destroy American political will.”
The narrow-mindedness of these maniacs is breath-taking. The freedom they allegedly fight wars to protect is what they most disdain...and loathe. For them, obedience must be in place through lock-stop conformity to whatever inane, diabolical, murderous plots the MIC and its Deep State enablers dream up. To them, any dissent--which is to say proof of an intelligence, foresight, and spiritually-based morality that transcends their rigid "with us or against us" call to kill others ethos --is the great danger.
These UNIFORM minds would wipe out anything other than their own image and likeness. It's the ruthless narcissism and moral vacuity of those that truly do lay their homage down before a god of death. These followers have no respect for life as is seen in the condition of lands (like Vietnam littered in Agent Orange, or Iraq in D.U.) and persons left behind as the armed automatons go on to fight the next war... always keen on this meaningless idea of "winning" when inestimable amounts of blood, treasure, and ecosystems are the true calculus and indicative of unimaginable losses.
THEY are the enemies to life, liberty, and the God-given pursuit of happiness allotted to each sentient being.
And to think their brutal, totalitarian, pro-military in all things philosophy is again dangerously spreading... it's a damned black hole!
Like a satanic seed, the fruit of Project Paperclip continues to mature:
"Posner and Vermeule have carved out a niche in American legal discourse in advocating that the U.S. needs to turn to the legal “wisdom” of the German Nazi lawyer, Carl Schmitt. In Terror in the Balance, they suggest that the U.S. may need to adopt censorship for, among other reasons, “antigovernment speech may demoralize soldiers and civilians.”
Of course they have to shoot journalists. Everyone knows the pen is mightier than the sword.
I would like to point out something about this paragraph that goes to the heart of why it is that I am quick to challenge the use of the WE meme when it's used to describe military actions... for in this way an intentional seamlessness between civilians and soldiers is covertly planted:
"As proof, Bradford explained how this “disloyalty” of the media worked during the Vietnam War. He wrote: “During the Vietnam War, despite an unbroken series of U.S. battlefield victories, the media first surrendered itself over to a foreign enemy for use as a psychological weapon against Americans, not only expressing criticism of U.S. purpose and conduct but adopting an ‘antagonistic attitude toward everything America was and represented’ and ‘spinning’ U.S. military success to convince Americans that they were losing, and should quit, the war. Journalistic alchemists converted victory into defeat simply by pronouncing it.”
The telling portion is this idea that a critique of war (particularly one as inane and without cause as that which was forged against Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) undermines "everything America was and represented."
A characterization of this type defines the nation primarily by its military actions. In other words, it defines a military state. But the U.S. is supposed to be a Democracy founded on laws that arguably grant (these rights evolving little by little) equal opportunity to all persons. THAT is a very different national identity than one that fixes its raison d'etre on wars, warfare, and kill counts.
Since the distinction couldn't be more important (and marks the difference between living in a land of rights and guaranteed liberties versus living under martial law), that's why I will continue to point out the many ways that journalists and C.D. opinion shapers gloss over the delineation. As I've long contended, it's their job description to do this.
And as I constantly counter--WE are not all soldiers, WE do not all kill or agree to the killing done in the nation's name (due to the influence of military coup-like forces that have satisfied Eisenhower's warning and done such odious things as "take out" Presidents who didn't conform to THEIR game plan); and that there is NO SUCH thing as the uniform-WE frame constantly used by those who are part of the military establishment cum Fourth Reich.
"Another chapter on Ethics and Information Warfare by John Arquilla makes clear that information warfare must be understood as “a true form of war.” The range of information warfare operations, according to Arquilla, extends “from the battlefield to the enemy home front.” Information warfare is designed “to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent.”
"This notion of information warfare, that it can be pursued without a need to defeat an adversary’s armed forces, is an area of particular interest, according to Arquilla. What he means is that it necessitates counter measures when it is seen as directed at the U.S. as now provided for in the new LOW Manual."
Remember all those I.T. kids that Edward Snowden exposed numbered into the many thousands? How many do you suppose are tasked with repeating pro-war talking points?
And this sterling piece of documentary, is well worth the reader's time:
and its sequel:
My favorite Mid East correspondent-Robert Fisk had an interesting take on one explanation of the callous brutalities our soldiers now engage in- not so much on the subject of journalists but I believe it is worth reading-
Robert Fisk: The US military and its cult of cruelty
The change to 'warrior' creed is encouraging soldiers to commit atrocities-
I went through my mail bag to find a frightening letter addressed to me by an American veteran whose son is serving as a lieutenant colonel and medical doctor with US forces in Baghdad. Put simply, my American friend believes the change of military creed under the Bush administration - from that of "soldier" to that of "warrior" - is encouraging American troops to commit atrocities.
My reporting notebooks are full of Afghan and Iraqi complaints of torture and beatings from August 2002, and then from 2003 to the present point. How, I keep asking myself, did this happen? Obviously, the trail leads to the top. But where did this cult of cruelty begin?
So first, here's the official US Army "Soldier's Creed", originally drawn up to prevent anymore Vietnam atrocities:
"I am an American soldier. I am a member of the United States Army - a protector of the greatest nation on earth. Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation that it is sworn to guard ... No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit or my country. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions, disgraceful to themselves and the uniform. I am proud of my country and it's flag. I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent for I am an American soldier."
Now here's the new version of what is called the "Warrior Ethos":
"I am an American soldier.
I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the Unites States and live the Army values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American soldier."
Like most Europeans - and an awful lot of Americans - I was quite unaware of this ferocious "code" for US armed forces, although it's not hard to see how it fits in with Bush's rantings. I'm tempted to point this out in detail, but my American veteran did so with such eloquence in his letter to me that the response should come in his words: "The Warrior Creed," he wrote, "allows no end to any conflict accept total destruction of the 'enemy'. It allows no defeat ... and does not allow one ever to stop fighting (lending itself to the idea of the 'long war'). It says nothing about following orders, it says nothing about obeying laws or showing restraint. It says nothing about dishonourable actions ...".
*And one very good but scary article Mr. Todd E. Pierce-
I watched A presentation by Ms. Wolf and Chris Hedges (among others) A few years ago and remember it to have left an indelible impression on my mind- It was called "The Warning" and was about creeping Fascism in America-
I remember her speaking of her Mother or Grandmother? telling her as A child, that when they burn books, it is only A matter of time until they next burn people-
I started reading this, this morning (sat. 12th of sept) and finished this evening...shock&awe...with every new paragraph I grew colder and my eyes less focused, I actually had to take a nap 2/3rds through but dreamed of it anyway...I am an enemy of the state? I was a C/O during VN and do still believe deep in my soul, "thou shall not kill" even though I'm non-christian...my mother's family came here in 1657 and fought and some died during the revolution, for this? It kinda makes me wonder how long it will take before someone with a uniform on sits in the oval office and have our "leaders" miss led/lead us with suits, ties and nice dresses...I know a few things that over time I haven't been afraid to share openly and one of my sister's-in-law always told me someday I'd disappear, I'd always laugh. Now I have tears, not from fear but of shame. I cannot be quiet because truth is, it just is. But I guess from now on I'll have to discriminate and that rips holes in my being. It's no small wonder we have so many running for prez right now. All that power to kill but to have the power to kill even the person next-door to you? This whole thing is sicking to me. I am a Dissenter of this, come and get me. This land is my land, this land is your land...too...tears...
The author is particularly good in tracing the historical origins of the current state of thinking within at least a segment of the military/legal establishment. What is most obvious is that as soon as war begins, even the best president's quickly move toward suppression of basic constitutional rights. Lincoln, who is almost universally revered as a friend of human rights, set a number of precedents which are still cited by the architects of Guanatanamo, notably the suspension of habeas corpus and the establishment of military commissions. Wilson, in many ways a progressive, authorized the mass arrests of socialists and others who spoke and wrote against the first world war. FDR approved the mass detention of Japanese Americans. And Obama's decision to continue Bush's wars has put him in the same company.
This is why all wars must be opposed by those who value liberty, and why candidates who speak glibly of "keeping all options on the table" should never be supported, no matter how much they may seem the lesser of two evils. Much as I admire Sanders' domestic proposals, for example, his willingness to support the military makes him potentially as a great a danger to liberty as any of the more overt warmongers now vying for the presidency. For those who believe that security never trumps liberty, the Green Party will be the only choice in 2016.
Like others who have posted here, I found this article exceptionally poignant in its analysis and facts. The role of fear in breaking a people's natural will for peace is particularly noteworthy. Had my run-ins with Siouxrose (who hasn't?) but her comments are excellent here.
If only all the warmongers could be put on one planet to have their fun killing one another and leave the overwhelming majority - the rest of us - in peace on another planet. But then our leaders are all too cowardly to actually do the fighting they claim is so important ...
Thank you for posting an important comment on this new version of soldier as naked, unabashed warrior. Good stuff!
Ms. Wolfe explains that a friend of hers kept saying--once Bush started his Patriot Act and there was a hushed lock-down on any anti-war sentiments--"This is what happened in Germany."
She explains (in her charismatic manner) that at first she tossed that off as hyperbole; but then this same friend gave her a list of books to read. And what she found out was that the quintessential blueprint for any totalitarian takeover--defined as such or otherwise ostensibly "known by its fruits"--follows the same 10 steps. The last is full-scale martial law. Anyone who's truly paying attention can see that all 9 steps ARE in place. And with all the saber rattling aimed at Russia and China, it may be a matter of time before the nation IS attacked genuinely. (911 was an inside job.) Such an attack would unleash the martial law that maniacs--as quoted in this article--are salivating to institute.
The totalitarian powers always take aim at Labor leaders, truly humanitarian (formerly known as liberal) church leaders, and journalists and academics who don't follow the Official Narratives. Sometimes artists and musicians who also present messages that run counter to the UNIFORM version of events promulgated by authoritarians and their champions are also done away with. Pinochet sliced the fingers off the most influential poet-minstrel and China went after at least one significant Pop Artist. Bush did his little quiet number on The Dixie Chics. Those are a few examples.
The military state's enablers invert the narrative asking (like Columbo) why no rock groups are promoting anti-war messages. They know full well that outfits like Clear Channel (which bought out 1800 radio markets to CONTROL so much of what passes over radio waves) won't play that type of thing. Just as almost no pro-peace voice was seen on any major media stations in the planned run-up to the Iraqi war.
The times are chilling... yet as I always contend, it's precisely the pressure gathered from these times of repression that cause the momentum to thrust the wave of progressive change forward. Right now it appears to be rolling under itself in a process that is squelching free thought, free expression, free assembly, and any viable concept of a Free People. And the phenomenon is largely global in scope.
Trained in disinfo, much?
In your comment you essentially rationalize that presidents own war powers that justify their cessation of liberties.
Then you go on to subliminally suggest that citizens should not allow this to happen, and that is done merely through the "right" candidate selection.
People a LOT smarter than you--and that includes Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolfe, and Catherin Austin Fitts, for starters--all say that both parties serve the corporate-make war state (their wording isn't the same as mine, but they say the same thing). This powerful duopoly makes sure that no genuine outlier can get media time, his or her name on enough ballots, or a chance!
Lastly, you use an article about the disgusting creep of fascism as promoted by a HIGHLY entrenched--not answerable to the sovereign citizens--military industrial complex's head honchos and Information Shock Jockeys to discredit Bernie Sanders.
YOU are a military insider. And a right wing lover of uniform authority, at that. This is hardly your first post that promotes these "sensibilities."
You minders do this often. And it's straight out of the same playbook that is moving to quash all dissent. This idea of "isolating the radical in order to control and neutralize the conversation."
This idea of "run-ins" is a means of brandishing an individual who challenges the group-think orthodoxy that is a constant in these opinion pages. MANY times people have shifted their screen names and until I call them on this, they pretend they are some new poster. And in the past, many of these individuals (and others) with obvious I.T. training and access helped themselves to MANY multiple screen names.
Participants of this forum who genuinely cared about liberty and the transparency that makes it possible, would applaud me for the courage to call out the Message Shapers. Instead, by laying a stigma on me that I "don't get along with a lot of people," a fake case is repeated often that is mostly in place to discredit those opinions (of mine) that are not in conformity to the group's Message (as tasked). It also pushes the idea that my ACCURATE (as those running this site on several occasions have validated) exposure of message control through input manipulations is not worthy of mention. Of course, those here to shape opinion and use their numbers to push for consensus want this factor to just go away.
The mixture of complimenting my post while pushing the Usual Castigation is the kind of mind phuck typical to dis-info. specialists.
Here is PROOF to what I have asserted and will continue to assert when I see evidence of it here:
Sorry - you failed the test.
I just came upon this one... it's brilliant and fits in perfectly with this article's topic. For impatient types, start it at the 12-13 minute point to hear the actual logistics of how the MIC determines public policy:
Psychopaths, guys. They're psychopaths, human-shaped crocodiles, hunger on legs, dangerous to all life on Earth.
The problem with career military is their myopia: they see everything in terms of win-lose, and are probably some of the most conventional, one-dimensional thinkers I have ever had to engage with. Add to that a deep seated conviction that they are supporting a glorious cause (US supremacy everywhere in everything) and a generally pretty obvious contempt toward civilians, and you have a toxic mix resulting in the load of poorly thought out crap now issued as military law. If you remember that they generally only talk to each other, it's quickly obvious why their delusions become their reality. We're in deep trouble, if the military manage to gain control of the government. Foggy thinking + fog of war= dystopia at its worst..
William C. Bradford (and many others mentioned here) suitably fit the mold of an “unprivileged belligerent,” to American "LIBERTY" as they are so absorbed with this draconian and sickeningly false sense of America's "SECURITY"!!!! Traitors to America, one and all!!!
The burning words of Ben Franklin: ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"" should be tattooed and branded into their fkn. foreheads!!!! .
Little wonder that there have been few Campus War protests- The Professors have essentially lost their 1st Amendment guarantees and would be hauled off in the dark of night!
I ask you, what is next with this Military Madness? Will War dissenting Congressmen be next on this Fascist shit list, where our rare elected officials, capable of critical thinking, when War is on the table,-will these congressmen viciously be labeled as “unprivileged belligerents" also, only to be black bagged in the middle of the night with no due process of law or Habeus Corpus? Or, will they simply meet their end like JFK, Paul Wellstone, Hale Boggs and countless others-
After reading this stellar article on what Empire is doing to our Bill of Rights and Constitution, I have to wonder if the "secrecy" of these up and coming "Free" Trade Agreements deviously "include" much of what Mr. Pierce so elaborately covers and so eloquently states here....