Barry SCHWARTZ (Barijo ŜVARC) (chemoelectric) wrote,
Barry SCHWARTZ (Barijo ŜVARC)
chemoelectric

More excerpts from William Rivers Pitt's article


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_121905Z.shtml


"Why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants?" asked columnist David Sirota in a recent essay. "The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so 'unreasonable' that even a FISA court would not have granted them. This is no conspiracy theory - all the signs point right to this conclusion. In fact, it would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise, because it would be ignoring the cold, hard facts that we already know."

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, widely known for her revelations about the inner workings of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and its manipulation of Iraq war evidence, spent two years working at the National Security Agency. On Sunday, I asked her what the ramifications are of a President throwing aside the firewalls that have blocked governmental surveillance of citizens for the last twenty five years.

"It means we are in deep trouble," said Kwiatkowski, "deeper than most Americans really are willing to think about. The safeguards of mid-1970s were put in place by a mobilized Democratic congress in response to President Richard Nixon's perceived and actual contempt for rule of law, and the other branches of government. At that time, the idea of a sacred constitution balancing executive power with the legislative power worked to give the Congress both backbone and direction."

"Today," continued Kwiatkowski, "we have a President and administration that has out-Nixoned Nixon in every negative way, with none of the Nixon administration's redeeming attention to detail in domestic and foreign policy. It may indeed mean that the constitution has flat-lined and civil liberties will be only for those who can buy and own a legislator or a political party. We will all need to learn how to spell 'corporate state,' which for Mussolini was his favorable definition of fascism."


I believe that's a myth. In any case, orientation by verbal definitions is un-sane, particularly so when the definitions are supposed to be those of a megalomaniac, murderous fiend. From personal experiences and recorded history, we know what Fascism entailed, how it was manifested, and that this was not covered by the notion of a 'corporate state'.

People who use this mythical verbal definition are looking for a way to denigrate one thing or another, involving 'corporations' in some way, without having to employ the brain. They are shutting down their own brains and trying to shut down the brains of the spoken-to. As I said before, orientation by verbal definitions is un-sane.


I asked Lt. Colonel Kwiatkowski what it all means in the end. "I believe this use of national technical means (NSA communications interceptions) against American citizens is illegal," replied Kwiatkowski, "and I hope the courts will reverse the President...."


If that happens, the question then will become how and how openly does Jesus II fail to carry out the courts' orders.

We are in a situation that cannot be resolved by courts; it must be resolved by Congress, through the power to impeach and oust. There is another way out, sort of, and that is because federal law, so I have heard, allows a sitting 'President' to be charged with murder; even in that case, though, if Jesus II is charged with murder (a crime that he likely is guilty of), this might rid us of Jesus II only because a 'President' charged with murder is almost sure to be impeached.


"It all points to growing DC anti-constitutionalism," continued Kwiatkowski, "and what Dr. Robert Higgs calls the growth of the warfare state. A warfare state is wholly incompatible with a constitutional Republic. In my opinion, we need to fight, resist, refuse to subsidize Washington in every way, and we must immediately begin impeachment proceedings against this particular president, not only because he has clearly earned impeachment, but in order to revive a national awareness of the intent of the Founding Fathers to circumscribe centralized state power, and their vision of a free and peaceful Republic."


A calming stimulus: Jesus II in the nose cone of a one-way Saturn V.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments