Thanks to the increasingly absurd, bought-and-paid for Supreme Court, corporations are now people but real people can be declared Orwellian 'un-persons' with but a stroke of a pen. This is an unconstitutional power given POTUS by SCROTUS but has no basis in law.
Everything you were told in school with respect to the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, the rule of law, the right to trial, the right to be confronted by your accusers --all of that is by the boards, 'repealed', rendered moot, defunct with yet another idiotic, stupid and dead wrong decision by the most subversive, traitorous 'Supreme Court' in history.
Moreover, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that government officials are immune from lawsuits because --at the time --it was unclear whether the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal. Let me help them out on this one: every 'prisoner' held in Guantanamo is held in violation of every treaty and international principle to which the U.S. is obliged. I believe that applies as well to Abu Ghraib. Clearly --every action of the U.S. in Iraq is illegal stemming from the illegal invasion, a violation of every international principle and/or treaty to which the U.S. is bound. Any death following as a result of any action taken by the U.S. in or to Iraq violated U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 is a capital crime! Bush himself is in violation of that provision. Others, farther down the food chain, can always plead: 'but ve ver only folloving orters!'
This affront to the rule of law must not stand! It is more repugnant than the so-called 'Intolerable Acts' which motivated the colonial separation from England. Can we have that revolution now? As everyone knows by now, SCROTUS recently declared corporations --mere words on paper --to be 'real people' having rights that are NOW denied to you who are living, breathing real people. This is intolerable and absurd. The Supreme Court should be dismissed! One wonders now what additional bullshit must the government try to pull before it is declared illegitimate by a 'people's tribunal' and eventually replaced a real government representing REAL people not 'legal abstractions' and the ambitions of the Military/Industrial complex?
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."[....]Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" -- did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."--US: Guantanamo Prisoners Not ‘Persons’, Anti-War Dot ComIn Orwellian terms, an 'unperson is a person who has been vaporized perhaps not literally by the state but nevertheless robbed of his/her natural rights and records of his/her ever having existed. This erasure of personhood itself consists of removing all references to the person in existing books, the destruction of photographs, in fact, any documentary proof of existence at any time, i.e, no trace or evidence is to be found in the historical record. Even close friends or relatives are 'expected' to forget that an 'un-person' ever existed. The very mention of the unperson's name becomes a 'thought crime'. The concept is not so far-fetched. Consider the Stalinist practice of erasing from photographs the images of convicted 'enemies' of the state. That individuals --real persons --may be subject to this treatment by the 'state' --itself a mere abstraction --is double-plus absurd and more so when corporations are given rights that, by right, belong only to real, living, breathing, biological human beings. Revolution now! 1984 might not have been late in arriving as is often thought. It's implementation may have been complicated but only temporarily delayed by the arrival of the internet. Certainly, the Reagan administration was poised to concentrate, consolidate the conventional and broadcast media into very few and controllable hands. Much of that has occurred. Fox, nothing more than a shrill propaganda organ, is a prime example. Fox arrived on time. The rest of the right wing coup cannot be far behind.
But for the internet and independent blogs, it is this Reagan legacy of concentrated, biased right wing media that you would depend upon for information. That should scare you! If it does not, you're reading the wrong article. Meanwhile, we should not be surprised that the 'conventional' media has yet to grasp the many harms done the world by Reagan, Bush and Bush. The conventional media still speaks another language! Newspeak?
In George Orwell's 1984, life is lived in a state of perpetual war. The U.S. has been at war in one form or another since the beginning of World War II. In 1984 an oligarchical society is defined by its having voided the rights of citizens. It accomplishes this with pervasive government surveillance, mind control, and a 'ministry of truth'. This has been accomplished in the U.S. with the repeal of the Communications Act of 1934 which had established the recently defunct notion that the 'air waves' are owned collectively by the people! That is no longer the law of the land and consolidation of broadcast and print media into very few hands is the result. The internet, we suspect, will eventually be brought under the control of Big Bro. Enjoy it while you can!
8 comments:
Like I said over at the Well-Armed Lamb, Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, et al., are the Storm Troops readying the populace for the change of the American Guard (to the Fascist United States of America).
Every word you have said is true, of course, and they have a new constitution (just like the ready-to-be-implemented Patriot Act) waiting in the wings for the right, planned moment (event) to occur so they can finally get rid of the real Constitution with all its "rights" and freedoms.
Bet on it. (And think deeply of their argument about how no terrorist attacks happened under Cheney/Bush's 8 years and what that will mean when one happens under Obama's leadership.)
The shock troops are assaulting all of the CIA-MSM-MIC TV outlets every day now.
It can't be long.
Thanks for all you do to keep us informed and enflamed.
S
Everything you were told in school with respect to the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, the rule of law, the right to trial, the right to be confronted by your accusers --all of that is by the boards, 'repealed', rendered moot, defunct with yet another idiotic, stupid and dead wrong decision by the most subversive, traitorous 'Supreme Court' in history.
____________
Suzan sez...
they have a new constitution (just like the ready-to-be-implemented Patriot Act) waiting in the wings for the right, planned moment (event) to occur so they can finally get rid of the real Constitution with all its "rights" and freedoms.
The 'coup d'etat' was, in fact, effected with the assassination of JFK. Opposition since that time is tolerated as long as it poses no real or substantial threat to the MIC or the CIA --both entities would have been neutered and brought under the control of a strong 'President'. JFK posed a threat to them as no President of either party has since that time.
Just to throw some more wood on the fire, Len -- corporations are above the criminal law. In 2007 Wall Street firms went before the US Supreme Court Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd v Billings) and argued that the SEC, which has no criminal powers, should have the sole authority to regulate them and that they should be immune from other US laws governing collusion and commercial bribery. The Supreme Court agreed with them. Bush did nothing to defeat this outrageous legal decision.
There's also my own notes on this here.
Great to see your post, Damien. And, as always, you are on target and two steps ahead. I must admit that I am not surprised that the BANKSTERS have been placed above the 'rule of law' which --clearly --not longer means anything. My position is: the rule of law applies to EVERYONE or it applies to NO ONE. We live in a Bushco created anarchy that is falling apart as we write.
The Incorporated States of America. Corporate consciousness has overwhelmed America. Criminal consciousness is now considered "genius" by the D.C. village. Torture is not torture if the United States does it, and a criminal act is not one if the president and his agents do it. One might suspect that the patients took over the mental institution.
Len,
This is really good - as is most of your work.
One remark, though - as far as subservience to corporations and dictatorial tendencies I can't say I see much difference between Democratic and Republican administrations. You seem to see things differently. May I ask you why?
Boris, there are differences between Dems and Rethugs and would be more but for two FACTS OF POLITICAL LIFE in America:
1) Dems are dependent upon the same money sources as is the GOP. Who created that situation? The industrialists who own the government. Yes! They OWN the government.
2) Dems are not as ruthless as are GOPPS but should they become as ruthless as the GOP they become the GOP.
Until someone figures out a way to take money out of the equation, we will always have but two parties --tweedle dumb and tweedle CROOKED!
Frankly, this issue is a distraction, an obfuscation until something FUNDAMENTALLY is changed and that won't happen short of revolution.
At last, I have seen computer printouts of political contribution amounts from various sources to various campaigns and/or candidates.
In some cases, I was able to see reports from each of two competing candidates --one a REPUG, the other a DEM.
In many cases, the biggest money sources were the same for BOTH candidates but with one telling difference: the GOP always got significantly more money
Now --there are numerous studies which correlate winners with amts spent. In almost every case, the candidate spending the most money wins! That may not be surprising but the implications are two-fold: 1) elections are literally bought; 2) the 'process' itself is but a sham, a 'show' done for the sake of appearances. We do not have a Democracy but the TRAPPINGS of it and those are bought and paid for by big corporations which the very WORST SCOTUS in U.S. history says are 'PEOPLE'.
One day, the corporations may simply 'cut out the middle man' and do away with elections entirely, replace them with electronic simulations to be broadcast on FOX or CNN or some 'media' not yet conceived of. Who would know the difference?
Post a Comment