"Due Process and Judicial Process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to National Security."
~Attorney General Eric Holder
Eric Holder's recent clarification of our constitutional right to Due Process is nothing short of a declaration of lawlessness that removes any standard for justice in the world. He was justifying the Obama administrations use of pilotless drones to assassinate US citizens abroad, a specific example with broad implications, especially considering the timing of his speech in the period between the signing of the 2012 NDAA and it's implementation in early March. In the past months the shock of Obama's passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has been wearing off and people are starting to wonder exactly what it means and how it will be implemented. It is not hyperbole to suggest that, in it's extreme, the provisions of this bill allowing for indefinite detention of civilians by military authorities without due process could be used to justify a declaration of Martial Law under any number of perceived threats to the Nation. Though Holder's examples of targeting al-Qaeda may be the emotional triggers that compel many Americans to agree with such a drastic departure from our right to a trial by jury, his statements made to justify the assassination of a US citizen was shockingly broad in scope.
"We must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority, and I would argue, the responsibility to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force. This principle has long been established under both US and international law. In response to the attacks perpetrated, and the continuing threat posed by al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, congress has authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerence under International law. The constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war."
~Attorney General Eric Holder
What is security if the greatest military super power in the history of the world can be so easily threatened by particular individuals? The US government is the mighty hero, or the damsel in distress depending on which mask suits it better at anytime, and often plays both roles simultaneously. The US government, outlined in the constitution, was designed to protect the rights, and provide for the security of the people. Ironically, this great power is more concerned with it's own security, and seems to be showing signs of paranoid schizophrenia. During the entire cold war with a perceived equal power the US government never made such drastic compromises of our constitutional right to trial by jury. Though the Bush/Cheney administration had expanded the powers of the executive branch in the direction of an all powerful monarch, Obama's supporters had "hoped" he might restore the balance of powers and the rights of the people. Instead, Obama is proud of his assassination program that has taken the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, and we must take the his word for it when those who are assassinated are labeled "guilty."
If this is how Obama treats his people in response to an old foe who has not struck in over a decade, how might our government respond to an internal threat that could potentially lead to widespread unrest or even revolution? After all, the US is a legal fiction, like a corporation, so would it not be ultimately threatened by a revolution, however peaceful, that could possibly replace it, render it redundant, or revoke it's charter? There are many who feel strongly that the US has no rights, especially in relation to natural born human beings, real entities with eyes to read these words; and that the only mandate a government has is by the consent of the governed, but not under duress by a government that perceives threats in it's own people. To write in the vein of our forefathers, to write with the passion of Thomas Paine, is all one needs to do to be on this ever-growing list of threats to a system of government that has long since lost it's legitimacy by the standards outlined in it's own constitution. There are some who are calling for an Article V convention under the constitution making a group of citizens an equal branch of power in checking the other branches, and authorizing a convention of citizens to amend the constitution. Perhaps these US citizens will be perceived as threats to this legal fiction called the US government, if they were seeking assurance from Holder's speech there was no comfort in his words to be found.
Holder vehemently defended Obama's right to assassinate US citizens based on the following criteria:
"First, the US government has determined after a thorough and careful review that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation will be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."
~Attorney General Eric Holder
Again, it can't be overstated that one cannot attack a legal fiction, and when done in war it is usually from a force of comparable or considerable size. That the president can deliberate over which petty criminal crosses the line into a viable threat against an entire nation in the secrecy of the oval office is perhaps the greatest threat this nation has ever known. The oath of office makes a distinction between enemies of the constitution being foreign or domestic, but it does not place one beneath the other. So what of those who believe that their own government officials, in the service of the wealthy corporations, have subverted the constitution in a manner that could lead one to declare them the enemy of the constitution? What of those who feel that Barack Obama is a far greater threat to the US for his consistent attacks on the constitution than any so-called terrorist hiding in the mountains of central Asia? Could it not be said that "capture is not feasible" for those in the Government and corporate elite who are perceived threats to the US in the eyes of it's own people? Holder's speech was a declaration of war on the citizens of the United States "consistent with applicable law of war principles" and strongly implies the imminent state of martial law on US soil.
The movement of Occupy Wall Street has brought our disturbing state of affairs to the foreground to be observed by even the most prudent skeptics, and the facts all add up to a Plutocratic coup d'etat in which our corporations select our congress members and presidents, they write our legislation and send it to the capital for a rubber stamp, and there seems to be little we the Natural born persons (as opposed to corporate persons) can do to stop this subversion of democracy. So now the Corporate persons are the only interests being represented in congress, and nothing threatens them more than OWS. It seems we are being prepared for an act of congress so heinous, so authoritarian, that only a series of shocking advances and overblown threats can deliver it in a short enough timescale. That timescale is based around the presidential election season, and by election day 2012 all of the pieces will be in place needing only to be implemented, the groundwork for all of the legal justification having been laid out piece by draconian piece. It doesn't matter who wins the election, the 1% is always the president, and he has no choice but to carry out their will lest he go the way of JFK. When a leader declares war on another country he does so with booming voice from the presidential podium for all to hear, when he declares war on his own people he uses legal jargon in hushed tones.
The week before Holder's speech a young unarmed black teenager was shot dead while pleading for his life in a gated community in Florida. His attacker, George Zimmerman was a self appointed neighborhood watch patrol man armed with a 9mm handgun who had a past of calling in suspicious black individuals in the neighborhood. Under a controversial new Florida law called the "Stand you ground" law, anyone who feels "threatened" can essentially get away with murder, and apparently if they only murder a black person they aren't even brought in for questioning. Zimmerman simply told the police who arrived on the scene that he felt threatened, though he was an armed adult 80lbs heavier than the young unarmed boy, and he admittedly pursued the boy who attempted to evade him out of fear. If one takes Holder's remarks in regards to threats against the nation and replaces the word "Nation" with "Neighborhood" a disturbing parallel begins to emerge. Trayvon Martin, the young black teen gunned down by Zimmerman was a perceived threat to the neighborhood based on the flimsiest of pretense, and was summarily executed on site without judicial process, but he must have claimed some form of due process. Because what is "Due Process" if it isn't "Judicial Process?" Isn't it simply a way of denying one their right to a trial by jury; to gun someone down in the streets and simply declare that they got what they deserved, what was Due? In other words, lawlessness, at least by the standards guaranteed in our constitution. But perhaps we the people no longer have rights, rights are now the sole property of nations and corporations and we'd best not get in their way because they may decide we are due for the process.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
A Very Big Tent
Before the first march on Wall St., before the first 3 man tent was erected in "Liberty Plaza", before the first amplified speech, which was before the first use of the human microphone, this fledgling new movement had already made a monumental achievement in the landscape of our contemporary political rhetoric. Any psychologist can tell you that themes and narratives are vastly important in how our brains, our minds process information, and therefore a collective shift in our narrative of world events is effectively a collective shift in consciousness, even if you don't acknowledge the spiritual aspects of such a phenomena. While the world was for so long clearly divided between "Haves" and "Have nots" or "Owners" and "Workers", the "American Dream" broke that narrative with a new theme, a new frame or context to view the same system, and we call that narrative "The Middle Class." For almost a century now this new narrative changed the way we saw the world, but it didn't change the world, not much.
We once had kings, monarchs, emperors, executing their dictates throughout the land, empowering 1% of the people to literally own the other 99% as mere possessions among their vast estates. This small minority was deputized with legal authority to imprison the people, settle disputes, and keep the peace. They felt very strongly that their god had given them this authority, that they rightfully owned not just the land, but the people who inhabited it alongside themselves. And what an incredible burden to be tasked with, to have hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dependents, living on their land, and relying quite heavily on their good will and favor. And those people who so desperately depended on this 1% didn't understand that they consumed so much, and lived such a high quality of life, just to keep the 99% busy, to give them jobs to do. After all, they had been blessed with good fortune and had reaped the rewards of higher education and privileged access to any opportunity a life can offer. We called these people the aristocrats and despite the rise and fall of empires over time, these parasites jumped like fleas onto the back of the next rising empire on the horizon.
There is only one pesticide that can eventually rid the world of these parasites who consume and contaminate the vast riches of our planet, who take 99% of the fruit and do 0% of the labor, and that pesticide is called "Direct Democracy." We have lived in a world where "representative democracy" has been hailed as the truest form of democracy, well, at least in recent years when the process didn't overtly exclude groups of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Perhaps taking 200 years to clear these hurdles has prevented us from seeing the greater injustice, so that now we merely appreciate that anyone of any color, gender, etc. can participate in an unjust system of governance. For example, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US armed forces may be the right thing to do in one context, but it doesn't mean the armed forces are doing the right thing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it doesn't make a homosexual soldier any less guilty of violating international law. But when you begin to frame our economic system in the narrative of the "99% vs. 1%" it gets increasingly difficult to deny that somehow our representative system only represents the 1%, or perhaps a less debatable way to say it is that no matter who wins an election, the 1% always wins.
No matter how mystified the main stream media continue to be about the "99%/occupy" movement, this simple narrative keeps shining through, like the sun clearing the fog in it's oncoming wake. Our polarized rhetoric begins to fade away as we embrace the reality of the contemporary aristocracy, the rate at which the income/wealth gaps have been growing has reached a point where the lifestyle of the 1% is radically different than what "conservatives" have been defending for hundreds of years. Even those ultra "conservative" Republicans of the oldest order who still favor the days of the robber barons before FDR made some alterations to the class system, they know that our current monied powers make the robber barons look like small fish. American political rhetoric is yogic in it's flexibility, but to call yourself "Conservative" and somehow justify the most radical and revolutionary leaps in the structures of money and executive power seems to be the position that finally breaks the elephants back. Terms like "Right", "Left", Liberal", "Conservative", are meant to divide us, not in how we live or what we believe, but the same way in which we pick a favorite football team, or select the brand that suits our self image.
Maybe the biggest difference that divides us is that some people stick with a team, a brand, a political party, for the rest of their lives no matter what may develop over that time, while others believe loyalty should be conditional, and that perhaps all relationships should be equal in power, in give and take. And when it comes to the political system it's increasingly difficult to see the difference between Coke and Pepsi (Democrats and Republicans), and having an equally sugary beverage in orange or clear colors doesn't seem like the most appealing direction to take. But the parties aren't sugary beverages, the sugar in this analogy is money, and every party is saturated in money, and the 1% can make any party it wants viable, or render it moot. But even if we could effectively break the dominant two-party system, we would still be left with representatives who have the privilege of access to adequate capital, wealth, the favor of the 1%. We can waste many lifetimes trying to remove one or more arrows from the quiver of the 1%, but as long as we keep centralized power and conquering currencies we are feeding the 1% and perpetuating the demise of our planet.
This new narrative that gives us the linguistic tools we need to diagnose the true ailment, the true source of our collective woes, will have failed if we do not completely eliminate the parasitic classes who pretend capital is a worthy contribution and an even trade for the lions share of the fruits of our labor. The 99% occupy space symbolizing the theft of land by the 1%, and we join together in general assembly meetings to practice direct democracy, signalling that we now know what true democracy looks like. And though we will struggle through the billion dollar brainwashing campaigns called election season we will emerge again to find the 1% at the helm and the people on the hook to pay for their countless crimes. We may see some minor level bankers and hedge fund managers take one for the team, but the team will continue to commit crimes of capital, war crimes, and any other crimes they damn well please. There will be many who admittedly cannot show their faces at a General assembly meeting, or an Occupy event, because they will wake up after election day realizing they have just consented to everything they have been struggling to change. And those few who identify with terms like "The right" or "Conservative" may vote for the Republican candidates and feel slighted and isolated by the heavy leaning towards democrats among occupiers.
Within the occupy movement there has been a call for unity among groups and organizations, and for greater outreach to those on all sides of the political spectrum who are hesitant to participate with the 99%. But the timing of the elections has been hugely detrimental as so many groups and organizations latch onto our two-party systems even as they criticize them. The question arises, how do we reach out to these groups in the hyper-polarized political climate of another critical election season, especially when we cannot really endorse any candidates or parties? The consensus process at the heart of the Occupy General Assembly format is designed to replace party/representative politics, not participate in it, and definitely not embrace it. Therefore we do not campaign for representatives, nor do we spend any time discussing who we intend to vote for. There are consensus groups who discuss and decide these things during election seasons, they're called caucuses, and the Occupy movement has principles inherent in it that prevent the General Assemble format to become another political caucus.
There are many who come to the simple conclusion that if one cannot campaign on behalf of their preferred presidential candidate, then there is nothing of any value to be found in the Occupy movement. This is proof positive that many people cannot imagine having political power in their own hands, they can only conceive of a world where the minority holds collective power by our consent, and exercise that power on our behalf. But we are waking up to the obvious inequities of this power structure that sustains the unsustainable, we cannot choose whether or not this plutocracy can continue, it cannot, we can only choose whether we wish to be awake for the inevitable collapse. And among the benefits of consciousness is the ability to prepare for the inevitable, to begin to see another way of organizing, and structuring power in our world. Our need for centralized, patriarchal power structures is quickly waning, but that goal is a fallacy that we need not work too hard against, as it is already working against the natural laws of the universe. And when the proverbial tower falls in on itself, we the people will be gathered together to take the reigns and survive as autonomous communities with loyalties only to democracy itself. What we make of our world is less important than how we make those decisions, and I pledge my loyalty to the consensus of the people, not the puppets of the 1%.
We are the 99% only to the extent that we resist our polarized narrative and embrace the biggest tent of them all: We the people.
We once had kings, monarchs, emperors, executing their dictates throughout the land, empowering 1% of the people to literally own the other 99% as mere possessions among their vast estates. This small minority was deputized with legal authority to imprison the people, settle disputes, and keep the peace. They felt very strongly that their god had given them this authority, that they rightfully owned not just the land, but the people who inhabited it alongside themselves. And what an incredible burden to be tasked with, to have hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dependents, living on their land, and relying quite heavily on their good will and favor. And those people who so desperately depended on this 1% didn't understand that they consumed so much, and lived such a high quality of life, just to keep the 99% busy, to give them jobs to do. After all, they had been blessed with good fortune and had reaped the rewards of higher education and privileged access to any opportunity a life can offer. We called these people the aristocrats and despite the rise and fall of empires over time, these parasites jumped like fleas onto the back of the next rising empire on the horizon.
There is only one pesticide that can eventually rid the world of these parasites who consume and contaminate the vast riches of our planet, who take 99% of the fruit and do 0% of the labor, and that pesticide is called "Direct Democracy." We have lived in a world where "representative democracy" has been hailed as the truest form of democracy, well, at least in recent years when the process didn't overtly exclude groups of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Perhaps taking 200 years to clear these hurdles has prevented us from seeing the greater injustice, so that now we merely appreciate that anyone of any color, gender, etc. can participate in an unjust system of governance. For example, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US armed forces may be the right thing to do in one context, but it doesn't mean the armed forces are doing the right thing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it doesn't make a homosexual soldier any less guilty of violating international law. But when you begin to frame our economic system in the narrative of the "99% vs. 1%" it gets increasingly difficult to deny that somehow our representative system only represents the 1%, or perhaps a less debatable way to say it is that no matter who wins an election, the 1% always wins.
No matter how mystified the main stream media continue to be about the "99%/occupy" movement, this simple narrative keeps shining through, like the sun clearing the fog in it's oncoming wake. Our polarized rhetoric begins to fade away as we embrace the reality of the contemporary aristocracy, the rate at which the income/wealth gaps have been growing has reached a point where the lifestyle of the 1% is radically different than what "conservatives" have been defending for hundreds of years. Even those ultra "conservative" Republicans of the oldest order who still favor the days of the robber barons before FDR made some alterations to the class system, they know that our current monied powers make the robber barons look like small fish. American political rhetoric is yogic in it's flexibility, but to call yourself "Conservative" and somehow justify the most radical and revolutionary leaps in the structures of money and executive power seems to be the position that finally breaks the elephants back. Terms like "Right", "Left", Liberal", "Conservative", are meant to divide us, not in how we live or what we believe, but the same way in which we pick a favorite football team, or select the brand that suits our self image.
Maybe the biggest difference that divides us is that some people stick with a team, a brand, a political party, for the rest of their lives no matter what may develop over that time, while others believe loyalty should be conditional, and that perhaps all relationships should be equal in power, in give and take. And when it comes to the political system it's increasingly difficult to see the difference between Coke and Pepsi (Democrats and Republicans), and having an equally sugary beverage in orange or clear colors doesn't seem like the most appealing direction to take. But the parties aren't sugary beverages, the sugar in this analogy is money, and every party is saturated in money, and the 1% can make any party it wants viable, or render it moot. But even if we could effectively break the dominant two-party system, we would still be left with representatives who have the privilege of access to adequate capital, wealth, the favor of the 1%. We can waste many lifetimes trying to remove one or more arrows from the quiver of the 1%, but as long as we keep centralized power and conquering currencies we are feeding the 1% and perpetuating the demise of our planet.
This new narrative that gives us the linguistic tools we need to diagnose the true ailment, the true source of our collective woes, will have failed if we do not completely eliminate the parasitic classes who pretend capital is a worthy contribution and an even trade for the lions share of the fruits of our labor. The 99% occupy space symbolizing the theft of land by the 1%, and we join together in general assembly meetings to practice direct democracy, signalling that we now know what true democracy looks like. And though we will struggle through the billion dollar brainwashing campaigns called election season we will emerge again to find the 1% at the helm and the people on the hook to pay for their countless crimes. We may see some minor level bankers and hedge fund managers take one for the team, but the team will continue to commit crimes of capital, war crimes, and any other crimes they damn well please. There will be many who admittedly cannot show their faces at a General assembly meeting, or an Occupy event, because they will wake up after election day realizing they have just consented to everything they have been struggling to change. And those few who identify with terms like "The right" or "Conservative" may vote for the Republican candidates and feel slighted and isolated by the heavy leaning towards democrats among occupiers.
Within the occupy movement there has been a call for unity among groups and organizations, and for greater outreach to those on all sides of the political spectrum who are hesitant to participate with the 99%. But the timing of the elections has been hugely detrimental as so many groups and organizations latch onto our two-party systems even as they criticize them. The question arises, how do we reach out to these groups in the hyper-polarized political climate of another critical election season, especially when we cannot really endorse any candidates or parties? The consensus process at the heart of the Occupy General Assembly format is designed to replace party/representative politics, not participate in it, and definitely not embrace it. Therefore we do not campaign for representatives, nor do we spend any time discussing who we intend to vote for. There are consensus groups who discuss and decide these things during election seasons, they're called caucuses, and the Occupy movement has principles inherent in it that prevent the General Assemble format to become another political caucus.
There are many who come to the simple conclusion that if one cannot campaign on behalf of their preferred presidential candidate, then there is nothing of any value to be found in the Occupy movement. This is proof positive that many people cannot imagine having political power in their own hands, they can only conceive of a world where the minority holds collective power by our consent, and exercise that power on our behalf. But we are waking up to the obvious inequities of this power structure that sustains the unsustainable, we cannot choose whether or not this plutocracy can continue, it cannot, we can only choose whether we wish to be awake for the inevitable collapse. And among the benefits of consciousness is the ability to prepare for the inevitable, to begin to see another way of organizing, and structuring power in our world. Our need for centralized, patriarchal power structures is quickly waning, but that goal is a fallacy that we need not work too hard against, as it is already working against the natural laws of the universe. And when the proverbial tower falls in on itself, we the people will be gathered together to take the reigns and survive as autonomous communities with loyalties only to democracy itself. What we make of our world is less important than how we make those decisions, and I pledge my loyalty to the consensus of the people, not the puppets of the 1%.
We are the 99% only to the extent that we resist our polarized narrative and embrace the biggest tent of them all: We the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)