The Depressing Reality of Indefinite Detention

After all the promises from both Obama and Congressional leaders that indefinite detention for Americans would not be written into law, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains exactly that.

What can we conclude from that? That both the executive branch including Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder and majority elements of the legislative branch — the Senate voted 81-14, and the House voted 305-107 — want the power to detain Americans indefinitely without charge or trial. And why would they want the power if they didn’t intend to use it?

Ron Paul:

The now-infamous NDAA for fiscal year 2012, passed last year, granted the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, without access to an attorney, and without trial. It is difficult to imagine anything more un-American than this attack on our Constitutional protections. While we may not have yet seen the widespread use of this unspeakably evil measure, a wider application of this “authority” may only be a matter of time.

Historically these kinds of measures have been used to bolster state power at the expense of unpopular scapegoats. The Jewish citizens of 1930s Germany knew all about this reprehensible practice. Lately the scapegoats have been mostly Muslims. Hundreds, perhaps many more, even Americans, have been held by the US at Guantanamo and in other secret prisons around the world.

Rand Paul:

When you’re accused of a crime in our country you get a trial, you get a trial by a jury of your peers, no matter how heinous your crime is, no matter how awful you are, we give you a trial.

And children of those indefinitely detained during World War 2 have launched a legal challenge to the status quo:

The children of Japanese-Americans whose internment during World War II was upheld by the infamous Supreme Court ruling Korematsu v. United States are stepping into a new legal battle over whether the military can indefinitely detain American citizens.

Writing that their parents “experienced first-hand the injustice resulting from a lack of searching judicial scrutiny,” the children of Fred Korematsu and other Japanese-Americans who were interned filed a brief on Monday in support of a lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Critics say the law allows the military to lock Americans away without trial merely on suspicion of support for terrorist organizations.

“During WWII, President Roosevelt essentially issued the military a ‘blank check,'” Korematsu’s children wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief. The military’s orders, “to which the Court uncritically deferred, culminated in the internment. In reviewing the NDAA’s new detention provision, the courts cannot afford to mimic the wartime Supreme Court’s failure.”

Then, America was at war with nations. Once a peace treaty was signed, the vile, racist detention ended. But for those detained under an accusation of being a part of decentralised groups like al-Qaeda, or Wikileaks, or Anonymous there are no peace treaties, no definite end to hostilities.

And while the judiciary has so far thrown out indefinite detention as unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, this has not stopped the legislative and executive branches of government from bulldozing on. Obama, the “constitutional scholar” defends the principle of the indefinite detention of Americans. The neocon triumvirate of Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman continue to demand it.

This is terrible. If evidence exists of lawbreaking, suspects can be charged and tried. If the government has no evidence that can stand up in court, it shouldn’t be in the business of detaining anyone.

Today the detained may be those accused of being members of al-Qaeda, Wikileaks, or Anonymous. Tomorrow, who knows who might find themselves in the crosshairs of indefinite detention — journalists, whistleblowers, dissidents. As Naomi Wolf noted when Judge Katherine Forrest first struck down indefinite detention:

Forrest asked repeatedly, in a variety of different ways, for the government attorneys to give her some assurance that the wording of section 1021 could not be used to arrest and detain people like the plaintiffs. Finally she asked for assurance that it could not be used to sweep up a hypothetical peaceful best-selling nonfiction writer who had written a hypothetical book criticizing US foreign policy, along lines that the Taliban might agree with. Again and again the two lawyers said directly that they could not, or would not, give her those assurances. In other words, this back-and-forth confirmed what people such as Glenn Greenwald, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the ACLU and others have been shouting about since January: the section was knowingly written in order to give the president these powers; and his lawyers were sent into that courtroom precisely to defeat the effort to challenge them. Forrest concluded: ”At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021. Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.

56 thoughts on “The Depressing Reality of Indefinite Detention

    • What about before and during WW2?

      Americans of Japanese extraction? I guess Americans of Middle Eastern extraction are the same category.

      We did the same in Australia.

      I guess we are at War right? What happened to principles?

      Did you know that this is why Germans rounded up many Jews during WW2. Because of the fear of Communism and the high % of Jewish people involved in high Party positions. The Germans were worried too? Communist officials starved Ukrainians to death (Google: Holodomor) This is why there was violent retribution in the streets when the Germans rolled in and allowed the rabble to vent their anger (Many had lost children and loved ones) and unfortunately Jews were targeted due to the Communist starvation and persecution of Christian faith, just like Muslims may be targeted for Terrorist atrocities today.

      If the USA loses the War on terror, will the Muslims hang our leaders, and educate the future about what had happened even if is the prerogative of the winner to write history?

      Hollywood made so many movies that espoused American freedoms and principles based on the Constitution. Watching Hollywood movies growing up, gave me a perception of US steadfast integrity and respect for rule of law. In hindsight these movies were ridiculing these principles. The Left has insidiously taken over the entertainment industry and destroyed any principles the US population had left.

      10 Years ago I visited the USA and found the rules and regulations stifling. I live freer in Australia without a Constitution, than the US does. Only because we would not put up with our civil liberties being infringed like this. Politicians would be out on their arse.

      • Yes, Buddy, but “Since the end of WW2, have any US CITIZENS been held unconstitutionally?”

        John, does the NDAA “authorize” indefinite detention for AMERICANS?

        • Footnote: I put “authorize” in quotation marks because it would, of course, be unconstitutional and therefor UNlawful.

        • A person doesn’t have to be indefinitely detained for the statue to have an effect on the judicial process or a defendant. Any prosecutor can use the threat of “indefinite detention” to elicit a plea deal, thereby avoiding trial and any judicial scrutiny. It has already been used against an American citizen. What is an individual citizen to do against that threat and the effectively infinite resource of the government. Very chilling indeed on individual rights to due process.

      • Self-proclaimed Ukrainian Jew-lover Buddy Rojek strikes again! Fact check on Ukrainian anti-semitism before “the Germans rolled in:”
        Between 1918 and 1921, there were 1236 violent incidents against Jews in 524 towns in Ukraine. The estimates of the number of killed range between 30,000 and 60,000.[1][2] Of the recorded 1,236 pogroms and excesses, 493 were carried out by the Petlura’s soldiers, 307 by independent Ukrainian warlords, 213 by Denikin’s Army, 106 by the Red Army and 32 by the Polish Army.[3] (Wikipedia)
        Dude, just admit that the Ukrainian peasants (and landowners, and nobility, and…) have historically been anti-semitic. There’s nothing wrong with it from a nationalist’s standpoint (and you do claim to be one).
        Rid yourself of this Jewish guilt you seem to be infected with. Be proud that your people have never tolerated invaders.

        • I spoke to my 90 year old Grandmother. She went to school with Jews just like we go to school with Muslims Hindus now. School friends. She watched them herded into houses and gasoline poured over the house. If you did not tell where Jews were you were shot. Difficult circumstances. Is my Grandmother evil because she survived? Did she tell? I don’t know. I know her family was burned alive in their homes. One fucked up situation.

          The problem is Germans could not do the dirty work and used propaganda to encourage the more unsavoury elements in Ukrainian society. Give a mentally challenged and or a psychopath, a uniform, a gun and a sense of importance and this is very dangerous. Don’t give the homeless FEMA jobs.

        • I am not condoning any pogrom. But if you want to be nasty, my grandmother worked for 30 years as a servant/cleaner in a prominent Jewish family home. If she was so Antisemitic, why work as help for your enemy?

          BTW when she retired there were no congratulatory parting words or gifts. You Jews need to learn why people sometimes have ill feelings. Get with the world and stop treating Gentiles with contempt.

          This may have been an isolated incident, but I can see why Jesus was a Rabbi with a different direction. Christians are Jews who had empathy.

          I dated a Jewish girl, and her Jewish family was lovely, but I was not invited to Pasach. That hurt. Now that I date a Ukrainian Girl of the same background to me, I feel happier and more welcomed.

          I support the right of Israel to exist, but Jewish Zealots and especially the cruel scheming ones who give their race/religion a bad name have to take responsibility for the hatred their race suffers. You lost Israel, you caused Pogroms and you caused the Holocaust. You will lose Israel again.

          There will always be uneducated violent youths who get excited and angry and take it out on minorities. If US youths in the South burned Muslims alive in their Mosques, do all US citizens get blamed?

          Well I know too well what Jews say about Ukrainians. Be a better community and treat people with respect. Do I blame all Germans or Russians for my families loss?

        • I support the right of Israel to exist, but Jewish Zealots and especially the cruel scheming ones who give their race/religion a bad name have to take responsibility for the hatred their race suffers. You lost Israel, you caused Pogroms and you caused the Holocaust. You will lose Israel again.

          I do not think Jews caused the holocaust or the pogroms. Both violent conflagrations arose out of a context of absolute violence and brutality at all minorities. Jews in Eastern Europe kept themselves to themselves and lived by their own traditions, which was misinterpreted by other groups in the area as hostility, who reacted in extremely violent and brutal ways.

          As for losing Israel in earlier millennia, I do not think that that was the Jews’ fault either, just simply the consequence of the violent and anarchic times during the decline of the Roman Empire when land changed hands frequently and violently.

          As for today, however, I think the settlement movement which is de facto annexing the West Bank is undoubtedly endangering Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy. I do think that it is possible that Israel will not exist in 50 years as a direct result of the settlement movement absorbing millions of Palestinians, who will eventually realise it is cleverer to peacefully demand votes than to fight. On the other hand, Sharon did a very clever thing by withdrawing from Gaza. Israel will remain Jewish-majority (for the time being) if it only absorbs the West Bank and not Gaza.

        • “You Jews need to learn why people sometimes have ill feelings. Get with the world and stop treating Gentiles with contempt.”

          BR, come on now. We’re talking about human beings here, that when stripped of the outside layer, are pretty much indistinguishable from each other.

          All peoples have committed great crimes against other peoples. It’s what social-man does.

          No need to keep score.

    • Yes, Americans have been detained in violation of the Constitution. I know of many people whose right to a speedy trial was denied them and spent YEARS awaiting trial in county jail. The Constitution has been dying a slow death and you all just didn’t pay attention.

  1. ‘Indefinate Detention’ is of course outrageous but the words you quote from Rand Paul are equally so! “When you’re accused of a crime in our country you get a trial, you get a trial by a jury of your peers, no matter how heinous your crime is, no matter how awful you are, we give you a trial.”.They indicate he has no idea what a ‘fair trial’ really means. If it means anything at all, it MUST include the presumption of innocence. Rand Paul has already decided that the person accused of a crime is an ‘awful person’ who HAS committed a ‘heinous crime’. His wording is reminiscent of the story of the sherif who, responding to the call of the lynch mob ‘Hang the horse thief’, said, “No, we’ll give him a fair trial(??), THEN we’ll hang him!”. Which means we’ll PRETEND to give him a fair trial, which is no better than the lynch mob. I hope Rand Paul might reflect on his words (& his thinking) & correct them. Norman Scarth. Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:48:48 +0000 To:

    • Norman, I don’t think Rand Paul is presuming any kind of guilt. I think what he means is that one should be given a fair trial irrespective of how awful the crimes one is accused of are.

  2. I hope Rand Paul might agree his words were badly chosen. Having criticised him, I must tell you that Britain is EVEN WORSE, as I know only too well! Until the age of 70 I was proud to be British, believing, as we were constantly told, that ‘British Judges are the Finest in the World’. Then came a succession of shocks as I learned there were many rotten apples among them. In memory of the many brave men (British & German) who died around me in World War II, & what we BELIEVED we had been fighting for, I made it my mission in life to expose the rotten apples. This has resulted in 17 years of unbelievable persecution, till finally, in February this year I was forced to flee the land of my birth & seek safety in the Republic of Ireland. Though Britain is bringing in her own laws for ‘Detention Without Trial’ there is no need. For many years they have used the Stalinist practice of incarcerating whistle-blowers & ‘dissidents’ in so-called ‘Mental Hospitals’. THAT is the fate in store for my if I dare set foot in Britain again! See , though it is not as up to date as it should be. Norman Scarth Veteran of the Arctic Convoys of World War II. Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:48:48 +0000 To:

    • I hear you. I give evidence on the Bible ( I am a Deist but I still give it honour as a portal to God) and tell the truth, and the Judge does not accept it, focusing on facts that have no relevance, ignoring facts that have relevance. I lost faith in the integrity of Australia (British) Law and its “esteemed” Judges.

      It is time for the rotten apples in the upper echelons of wealth and power too be held accountable and punished.

      People of integrity need to be placed in positions of power, instead of power seeking psychopaths who use Machiavellian techniques to worm their way to the top.

      • “People of integrity need to be placed in positions of power, instead of power seeking psychopaths who use Machiavellian techniques to worm their way to the top.”

        Just like really beautiful women need to married a guy for his integrity instead of his wallet.

        Power and wealth are about as symbiotic as it gets.

  3. Since the very purpose of EVERY institution is/becomes the protection of the status quo, it should come as no surprise that the legal system must address all [financial] threats to TPTB.

    The law [which is 99.9% property law], is in place to protect the elite’s wealth. When a society begins to break-down and property is threatened, more laws must be created to insure this threat is neutralized. All else is merely window-dressing.

    I believe that the U.S. has lived-out this idea quite well, as the right to speech, although soundly protected, has little real consequence, whereas the threat to the elite’s property has spawned another global military empire.

    The ability to incarcerate [indiscriminately] is a warning to those who would attempt to challenge the financial hegemony of the Elite. They could care less how you think as long as you allow them to steal you deaf, dumb, and blind.

    This is the rule of law.

    • Imp: Based on experience, I once again find your heart in the right place but your accusations misdirected. A partial rebuttal:

      The subjects, US “indefinite detention” and UK citizen Norman Scarth’s accusations of scandalous persecution, are not about property or finance. [Of course securing ALL citizens’ rights, including property, against government is the foundation of the US Constitution and British common law]. But it is POWER (the essence of government) that stands accused here along with its agent, the often-misnamed “legal” or “justice” system. Not only does the legal system favor government, but too often also powerful private interests.

      This is illegal elitism, not the rule of law — [except where the law supports despotism, e.g., Nazi Germany, not (yet) the case in the US and UK, thank God!]

      Aziz: Can you determine the facts of Norman Scarth’s case(s)? If as reported, there is an excellent cause celebre! You could write another “J’accuse” and become the English Emile Zola!

      • DG, then why is 99.9% of all law, property law? Do you believe there would be law if not for the protection of wealth?

        The law is for sale and ALWAYS has been. Doesn’t it seem a bit paradoxical that those appointed with upholding the law [lawyers and judges] are among the most hated people in all societies? People get it.

        I believe you are bit idealistic when you suggest that the rule of law is something separate from the people who administer it. This would be like suggesting that organized religion is really not that institution that has always hoarded unknowable amounts of wealth.

        People use the power of the group [institution] for individual benefit, always have, always will. This reality twists the spirit of the law into the practicality [the rule] of the law, much like how a woman uses her charms as bait, luring the unsuspecting male into a nefarious and danger-laden quagmire.

    • Laws were passed after 911 that allow authorities to imprison anybody who is a “Leader” of any rebellion, riot or violent attempt to challenge the Government, even if they are run by criminals.

      The irony is Evil is protected by henchmen (Police, Military), dictated by “Laws”.

      The pens is mightier than the sword. Only when the sword is wielded by force that is paid for by the persons holding the pen.

  4. It is very, very sad that Obama did not take this opportunity to veto this. I hope the children of the Japanese Americans have a good outcome but I fear whatever it is the administration will chase it back into court to be overturned.
    Yes, this is coming in everywhere and if you think you are freer in Australia we will watch carefully if you are able to rise up and defeat these erosions. I believe your guns were outlawed and you are subjects not citizens? A long way to go.
    As for Britain, I am very sorry to hear Norman’s story. However, many are waking up and realising what is happening in front of our eyes and doing something about it while we can.
    Brilliant post, John!

  5. This one’s for Buddy- the story of Mendel Beilis, hero of the Israelites:
    Menahem Mendel Beilis, 1874 – July 7, 1934, (sometimes spelled Beiliss;[1] Russian: Менахем Мендель Бейлис, Yiddish: מנחם מענדל בייליס) was a Ukrainian Jew accused of ritual murder (see Blood libel) in Kiev in the Russian Empire in a notorious 1913 trial, known as the “Beilis trial” or “Beilis affair”. The process sparked international criticism of the antisemitic policies of the Russian Empire. Beilis’s story was the basis for Bernard Malamud’s novel The Fixer, which won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award.
    Dude was one tough motherfucker. Lasted years in a Ukrainian prison (pretty sure they pu CIA torture cells to shame) so as not to implicate his nation as a whole in crimes dreamed up by the superstitious Ukrainians. After the Ukrainian/Russian prosecution was reduced to a joke in the eyes of the world, Beilis barely got off.

  6. Buddy- were the scores of prosecutors, professors, medical “experts,” and other Ukrainian/Russian witnesses for the prosecution of Mendel Beilis also “poor and uneducated” as you allege of the anti-semitic Ukrainian masses? No way.
    The claim that the Jews caused the Holocaust, which you make, is dopey. Take moral responsibility for your actions. The Ukrainian peasant masses enthusiastically pitched in in the murder of the Jews because of their Low Moral Standard. Not because it was an opportunity to “feel important.”

    • I lived in the heart if Jewish Melbourne. Many friends were Israeli IDF on leave. They told me that the Ultra Orthodox were giving them a lot of trouble in Israel, they were having too many children and relying on welfare. I don’t know how true this is, but I saw some disdain for them, theire own people. These IDF guys were generous, kind and “Top Blokes” An Aussie slang word for trusted friend. The Ultra Orthodox family living next door would hardly engage conversation with me. I wore a suit and tie, so there was no need to fear me.

      My point is the Jews have to engage with secular society in a manner that is culturally compatible and mutually beneficial so they are not seen as outsiders and someone to fear (Superstitious idiotic people treat outsiders this way). The Muslims as well. And for that matter the Christians. People who engage in their own sect excluding others due to a superiority complex, only cause their own mistrust among other sectors of society.

      Rabbis, Priests and Imams need their flock to fear others so they maintain control of their flock. These leaders crave control and power. Tribalism leads to war. This leads to detention.

      Have a read of this. I agree with it.

      Do we bog down our Police and Judiciary with due process, or just round up and incarcerate? Hitler found it more economical to do the latter.

      • Buddy-
        The ultra-orthodox in Israel are a true scourge. But their enablers are government! When the majority votes in a system that pillages the wealthiest for purposes of monetary redistribution can you blame the people who take advantage of this free money?

        • The Charedi are the only Jewish sect who can reproduce at the same speed as the Arabs and keep Jews in the majority in the long run.

  7. As usual, the root cause comes from economic policy that is at least partially well intentioned, but ultimately misguided:

    “real estate prices have increased by 40 percent” so people think they need more land; it’s a fairly natural response, particularly if you have not ever opened an economics textbook (which most people haven’t!)

    • Real estate is perhaps the best example of the divergence of value stated in its true form, labor-value, and its abstraction into its money-form.

      If the cost of a particular house was calculated in trading your labor-in-kind with all the various tradespeople involved in its construction, methinks that the value you will get is much closer to the actual value [time and materials] of the house constructed.

      When labor-value is morphed into its money-form, then the financial magicians start pulling rabbits out of hats, coins from their ears, and all the other tricks that allow them to sell that which has no value what-so-ever. Simply the idea that there should be a commission on buying/selling a house should raise numerous reg flags.

      Follow the fancy cars and their hollow inhabitants and you will discover these beacons of society shifting around on the ideas which give rise to their perverse creativity, attempting to hatch yet another ruse in the endless quest to get something for nothing.

  8. Sure sounds true, Imp — especially the real estate agents’ monopoly commission of 6%!

    However, haven’t market prices of homes (in most US areas) dropped to below replacement (land+construction) cost minus depreciation?

    • The replacement cost of a house includes an enormous list of costs that have absolutely nothing to do with the house/land itself. It seems as if all the parasites attach themselves to a housing project/transaction.

      If you strip out the financialization of the entire process of constructing a house and purchasing the land, you might find that its value would be equal to time and materials.

      Similar to losing 15-20% of your new automobile’s value once you drive if off the [s]tealer’s lot, an existing house’s value should be its purchase price less all of the costs over and above T&M minus depreciation.

  9. Sounds about right again, Imp. Would true value be the cost of land +T&M minus depreciation if the owner contracted and financed it all himself?

    I wonder how the current market prices of resale homes compare to your definition of value?value

    • Imp, old friend: After looking back over all of the above posts, not to mention several earlier Azizonomics threads, I have concluded that I should offer a truce, if not an apology. A lot of others’ posts recall and revive old animosities and prejudices, much of it group/ethnic/institutional as you keep pointing out.

      While I can’t agree that (or fail to understand your classifying) 99+% of law concerns property, I surely endorse your dicta that: power/government and wealth are symbiotic; the law, as enacted and enforced, is for sale; rule of law” is NOT “separate from the people who administer it”.

      My lament: All lawyers are lawyers, all judges are lawyers, most legislators are lawyers.

      • The Law has never been about people. Just like becoming “legally” married has nothing to do with anything but property rights.

        If there was no such thing as property [rights], how many laws would you need? The entire point of having laws is to protect property [and, as an amazing coincidence, the elite just happen to possess most of it :], as well as, having a legal mechanism in place to take other people’s property.

        The first legal tenet lawyers are brainwashed with is that people exist to serve property, instead of the other way around. Why else would slavery, serfdom, and wage-labor be [have been] legal?

        The manifestation [as opposed to the intent] of a principle is always the truth of the matter. Turning this reality on its head allows all this non-sense to go on, such as people in power declaring that the rather large and menacing Tyrannosaurus Rex in the room is really a cute little bunny rabbit.

  10. The definition of a worker (wage-slave) has been changed to mean someone in gainful employment. It actually means slave. A worker sells their energy time and intellect for a wage. A person is utilized by another person directly or by a chain of command within an institution, like a machine, or a slave. Self ownership is appropriated by the master or employer. When millions of people only have this option open to them and they are in debt to the bankers and they pay taxes to the state…they are slaves. Immanuel Kant in his ethics said ‘do not use other people as a means’…this basic ethical law is never adhered to by Capitalists nor Communists, nor Fascists. People are prevented from being self employed by the state and the elites who skim wealth and property away from the workers.

    The laws of the state simply protect the master employers and their debt and tax system of appropriation. The education system and propaganda system work to make the slaves accept their system of slavery as the just and right one.

    Only that economic system is free when its laws allow the circulation of wealth to all and it prevents an economic elite to emerge. These laws would allow private property, they would disallow usury, money lending and the limited liability corporations, they would also prohibit any elites from making their own laws.

  11. Imp & rob: I’ll leave theory and history to you and others. I long for individual freedoms including property rights, career choice independent of monopolies and unions, and equal justice before the law. Didn’t we have it once?

    • DG, who is “we?”

      There have been certain times throughout history where things worked reasonably well for some, but the over all story is that most people have struggled.

      We are now in a period of massive centralization of every damn thing with the resultant systemic dys-function. My point is ALWAYS the same, that is, in order to have the best outcome, it is essential to see things as close to what they actually are, instead of, idealistically.

      You can hope for this, that, and the other thing, but it is that hope which diverts people from the truth, which is that people in power [generally speaking] are going to try to rip you off. It’s the way it’s always been, THEREFORE, you must severely limit power.

      Property [rights] is an ideal that doesn’t really work very well for the majority. Like Marx said, “Under capitalism, people are commodities, things have relationships.”

  12. Imp, if your idea of decentralization and diffusion of power is to replace capitalism (private property, free markets of labor and goods) with Marxism, we must part company. An imperfect free society exploitable by your “power-SEEKING psychopaths” is far better than an absolute power monopoly like Lenin’s, Hitler’s, Mao’s, etc.

    Wasn’t it Marx who proposed “dictatorship of the proletariat”, with dictatorship guaranteed to “wither away” after workers eventually evolved beyond the desire for a better individual/family life? And didn’t it turn out to be dictatorship OF the proletarians BY the elite few dictators?

    My “we” is citizens of a constitutional republic with individual rights secured by subservient government.

        • John: Granting him less-than-total-“Marxist” ideology, impermanence continually dwells on PROPERTY, which in my cold memory is Marx/Engels/Lenin “materialism”. Marriage “has nothing to do with anything but property rights”; “the entire point of having laws is to protect property”; lawyers are brainwashed* with “people exist to serve property”.

          If nothing matters but material things, then the monarchs, dictators, theocrats, commissars, monopolists, etc. are justified in acquiring and controlling as much as they can.

          * That is easy to refute: lawyers are taught to get a client and go for “deep pockets”!


    Second Amendment supporters calling for the ‘deportation’ of a person for exercising his First Amendment?

    Yes, that is ironic. To say the least. But Pier’s response to said irony seems to have produced at least one unintended consequence that every discerning thinker should be easily able to grasp.

    In short, he pleads the 1st not understanding that a monopoly holder of (assault) force is ‘best’ positioned for chilling free speech through intimidating threats, or the imposition of actual punishment onto a scapegoat to stop others’ from speaking what’s on their mind, and that the only remedy to any monopoly is (lawful) competition that (necessarily) remains within the realm of a strict respect for private property rights – which, in turn, most certainly dictate that it is always and everywhere against the Law to physically attack someone. Because to attack a person is to attack that individual’s most important private property, seeing as you own you, no? Of course! Your body is your most important private property.

    After all, why do you think they call them private parts!?
    Because we are borne to produce through love, not destroy with hate, but artificial interest rates that rely on excessive force have gone so far as to obscure this, the most basic of all timeless points that can be made.


  14. Marxism is worse than pure Capitalism. State (not pure) Capitalism is a form of Marxism with some private property. It is a shame that Marxist thought developed as it did, now anyone who criticises State Capitalism is suspected to be a leftist by most people caught up in the Left-Right Dialectic. Really the ruling classes have no argument, all the political parties simply serve the ruling classes and they disagree on paripheral policies, nothing radical.

    We just need the end of fiat currency and the re-establishment of a free market in currencies, the end of progressive taxation and the National Debt. America had these things in the past and it had more liberty than it does now. As the power of the State increases there is less liberty and this situation is corrosive and a sign of major decline and corruption. Empires implode.

  15. ROB, your 2nd paragraph above (Dec 26 @12:40:23) is very well said and a better answer to impermanence that my one-liner. But (see your 1st para.) where in the world do you find the basis for “anyone who criticizes State Capitalism is suspected to be a leftist”??? Ron Paul, among many others, would surely be surprised to be called that!

    “Left-Right Dialectic”, if that means labeling everything and everybody along a single axis, is certainly absurd. I wish ALL the old misleading labels would go away — liberal, conservative, left, right, progressive, fascist, radical, etc. Absolute state power is tyranny*; absence of any state power is dysfunctional anarchy.

    * “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”. Thomas Jefferson.

  16. “Knowledge and creativity is a great resource; we are neither rich in commodities and natural resources, nor does our demographic situation allow us to expect us to be a growing market; if you want money from us, we have to point to our level of indebtedness so our treasure is the bright minds we have, our history and tradition which we can use to shape the future” ~ Angela-Merkel

    So stop charging for information! Voluntary donations suffice

  17. Listening to Angela say “domestic” reminded me of the phrase ‘a domesticated cat’, insofar as political talk involving the foreign/domestic dialectic has in the domestic point of view this idea that the (local) domestic subjects are but wild animals that require training (top-down, debt based systems of education) and “looking after” (with taxes): once again highlights that anything except for self-governance points to the chance that people think of you as something they themselves may happen to be a rightful owner of

  18. …Preferring a myth of a triumphal struggle for “national independence” …The read back of history as the victory of nation over empire was itself part of the process of foreclosing alternatives to the power of national elites that emerged within each State…this phenomenon is still visible in movements like UKIP, which may hold preferable views about economic freedom, but still locate themselves within a territorially bounded State rathe than a legal zone subscribing to a particular type of (private property?) doctrine

  19. Readers might like to visit the site where is posted an official recall petition to recall Carl Levin, which can be printed out and circulated. What is even more depressing than indefinite detention, however, is the fact that Americans have the power to rid themselves of this scum but are too zombie-fied to lift a finger. The petition gathered about 200 signatures in 6 months. This petition will be renewed in January (it expired in December), although I’m not sure why.

  20. The petition* spokesperson states that the NDAA applies to US citizens; if so, it seems clearly unconstitutional per Amendment V. Has it been challenged in court?

    This Michigan law providing for recall of US senators is most interesting and promising! Reportedly a similar NJ law was voided per the NJ STATE Constitution, but no US Constitutional challenge of either state law was mentioned.

    * Only Michigan voters can sign.

  21. We are being morphed into a New World Order or a One World Government called, “Globalization”. Elements of this NWO include a police state, surveillance or everything you do via smart phones, internet activity, spending etc. to build profiles on those that fall within the definition of an “unlawful enemy combatant”. To learn more of how an international group of plutocrats is bringing this about thru legislation like NDAA etc. read this:

  22. Mine is a question, not a comment. How do I, and we as a people file a Friend of the Court Brief against the National Defense Authorization Act if I/we so choose?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s