One of the requirements for a totalitarian police state is a system of kangaroo courts, star chambers which operate in secret and in parallel to the existing judicial system to convict political prisoners of pretended crimes against the state, which could never survive in the regular courts. And former judge Michael Mukasey, nominee for U.S. Attorney General to replace Alberto Gonzales, has proposed that the United States adopt such a system of courts.
In a little-noticed opinion piece in theWall Street Journal in August, Mukasey argued that terrorism trials in regular courts exposed too much information to the enemy, undermining national security. The existing legal system, he says, is “strained and mismatched” to the task of dealing out justice to those accused of terrorism.
Mukasey cites two proposals, one by former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger to authorize detention of suspects before they have committed any crime, and one by Andrew C. McCarthy and Alykhan Velshi of the Center for Law & Counterterrorism to create national security courts which would try suspects — foreigner and American alike — in secret. The McCarthy-Velshi proposal would apply to “international terrorism and other national security issues.”
Legal scholar Glenn M. Sulmasy was the first to propose a national security court to try suspects in secret. Sulmasy’s proposal would create National Security Courts, loosely based on courts-martial, which operate in secret, where defendants cannot obtain their own counsel unless the government agrees to grant the attorney a security clearance, and where defendants are tried at U.S. military bases and detained, imprisoned and executed at U.S. military brigs.
Most importantly, anyone, American or not, could be tried in a National Security Court, or as they seem to be called these days, Homeland Security Court.
“Another need for [homeland security] courts is to deal with the latest issues,” Sulmasy explained during his discussions with HSToday.us. “US citizens who turn their backs on the government and seek to overthrow it by engaging in jihad right now are treated differently than jihadists from other countries. A homeland security court would remove this disparity. . . .”
Commander Sulmasy, who’s been interviewed at length by HSToday.us in recent weeks, is the first permanent commissioned military law professor (appointed by President Bush in 2003) at the Coast Guard Academy, where he is an associate professor teaching international, constitutional and criminal law. He’s also a judge advocate, served on the faculty of the International Law Department at the US Naval War College and next year will be a National Security and Human Rights Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He’s written extensively in law journals on the legal challenges of adjudicating captured terrorists. — HSToday.us
It’s clear that, in the short term, some legitimate system is needed to deal with people who engage in hostilities with the United States. It’s not at all clear that a separate and parallel judicial system, which would sweep up ordinary innocent Americans accused of terrorism and other undefined “national security issues,” is the right answer.
Remember Guantanamo Bay, chock full of innocent people who were ordinary farmers one day and being waterboarded the next, because some bounty hunter wanted an easy $5,000? The government admits that of all the people it’s released from Guantanamo, 10 percent returned to the battlefield. What of the other 90 percent, who we can only presume were innocent, whose lives were disrupted for years by being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Federal district court judge John Coughenour, who presided over the trial of Ahmed Ressam, who attempted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in the so-called millennium bombing plot, says that a separate judicial system is unnecessary.
It is regrettable that so often when our courts are evaluated for their ability to handle terrorism cases, the Constitution is conceived as mere solicitude for criminals. Implicit in this misguided notion is that society’s somehow charitable view toward “ordinary” crimes of murder or rape ought not to extend to terrorists. In fact, the criminal procedure required under our Constitution reflects the reality that law enforcement is not perfect, and that questions of guilt necessarily precede questions of mercy.
Consider the fact that of the 598 people initially detained at Guantánamo Bay in 2002, 267 have been released. It is likely that for a number of the former detainees, there was simply no basis for detention. The American ideal of a just legal system is inconsistent with holding “suspects” for years without trial. . . .
If confirmed, Judge Mukasey will join Michael Chertoff as another esteemed former jurist in the executive branch facing the formidable task of keeping our nation safe from terrorism. The distinction between the roles of judge and law enforcement officer should not be lost in the transition. Our courts ensure an independent process; they do not enforce the prerogatives of law enforcement. Any proposal that would blur this distinction would compromise a bedrock principle of government that has defined this country from its inception. — New York Times
But merely providing a system to try suspected terrorists in what could easily become a kangaroo court, a complete mockery of due process in which the innocent are convicted right along with the guilty, is just the beginning.
Terwilliger would like to see a national security court that could authorize preventive detention. So a judge could lock suspects up to stop them from committing a terrorist act — even if prosecutors can’t show that they’ve already committed a crime. Britain has a system like that, but the United States does not.
“The government will find a way to identify people who are dangerous and need to be incapacitated to neutralize the threat that they represent, because the people will demand that,” Terwilliger says.
He says the question is whether the government will incapacitate people by bending the rules of the system we have now, or by working within the rules of a new system that everybody signs on to. — National Public Radio
The Homeland Security Court, as effective as it might be for prosecuting real terrorists, would also open the way for innocent Americans to be picked off the streets and suffer the same treatment as innocent foreigners.
You won’t have to be brown skinned, wearing funny clothing, and praying to the east in order to be thrown into a military brig, given a secret trial where for the government justice is secondary to winning, and disappeared forever. These Homeland Security Courts, or National Security Courts, once established, will begin growing just like any other government program. It won’t be long before the government begins to expand the categories of people who are eligible for the secret star chamber process until virtually anybody could be disappeared for saying the wrong thing in public.
It can happen here. You could be next. Our system of government doesn’t make it impossible, only somewhat more difficult than in other countries. Innocence won’t protect you. It won’t even matter anymore.
And, as Judge Coughenour says, “This is a price too high to pay.”
Mukasey’s nomination was approved 11-8 Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee and has gone to the full Senate for confirmation. He faced harsh criticism over his refusal to state that waterboarding of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay was torture and therefore illegal under U.S. law. The Senate is expected to vote as early as Thursday.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Fraud Guy
Nov 08, 2007
Remember, remember, the 5th of.
Oh, sorry, I thought I was on the previous post.
Barterer
Nov 08, 2007
Thank you for shining a light on this, Michael. I can’t believe the courts we already have are considered inadequate to handle our very scary made-up class of crime called terrorism. Never mind that every single terrorist act (murder, destruction of property, or conspiring to commit those acts) is more than covered under the present system, including measures of secrecy when there is any danger of someone using information from a case to commit more crime.
The legal system in general has gone astray in trying to prosecute crimes of motive, which are not true crimes at all. Putting crimes under the “terrorism” umbrella is essentially the same idea as hate-crimes and discrimination laws (thought-crimes). Kill a bunch of people because voices in your head told you to, and you’re a kook. Kill a bunch of people to steer government policy a certain way, and you’re a terrorist. No difference but thought. No way to prove it one way or the other. And now this will require a whole new court system? Good grief. Can we please just focus on what criminals DO and not what they do it FOR.
FSP_Dan
Nov 08, 2007
One of your best articles. Thanks.
Michael Hampton
Nov 08, 2007
Fraud Guy, just wait until Hillary gets hold of these national security courts.
Fraud Guy
Nov 08, 2007
Michael,
I hope at some point it is not a choice between another repeat; Mr. Noun/Verb/Date; and Brazil.
I would prefer Kucinich v Paul, because everyone would actually have to think about who and what they are voting for (other than ending the war), and not the branding.
And looking over my post, the third choice would be subsumed in both of the first two, wouldn’t it (especially for Pythonites)?
Kick ASS
Nov 09, 2007
Go get em!!! Great article!!!
susan28
Nov 12, 2007
this goes hand in hand with the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” that is currently before the Senate (call your Senators please).
from Infoshop:
“the bill, otherwise known as the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” includes some vague definitions that could be interpreted to define people, who are currently protected by the First Amendment, essentially as thought criminals so that they would no longer be protected by quite possibly the most popular of all Constitutional Amendments. The Act does not make certain forms of thought a crime itself, however, it does mean that a commission would be established, as well as a broad network of academics and researchers, specifically for the purpose of identifying ideologies that somehow can be considered to be a cause of terrorism, a premise accepted as fact by the language of the bill. This is “pre-crime” and “thoughtcrime” all packed into a predetermination set by this bill to bias any research done for and accepted by the commission created by the bill, which could logically lead to changes in interpretations of legalese and possibly more legislation that would directly criminalize ideologies that can be considered by whoever ends up doing the research as terrorism prone. It is a small but dangerous step toward a terrifying Orwellian scenario becoming reality.
The bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title VIII (6 U.S.A 361 et seq.) by adding “Subtitle J.” This would create a “National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism” under section 899C, and a “Center of Excellence” under section 899D, which is anticipated to be based in universities around the U.S., utilizing the social sciences found on any university as well as other researchers to make data and research findings available to the commission, who will file a “Final Report” 18 months after the commission is created to the President and Congress. The report will provide “recommendations,” rooting whatever decisions are made to prevent this vaguely defined dissent in scientific research, in order that the President and Congress may have a clearer understanding of what “measures…can be taken to prevent” these forms of dissent. In other words, they are establishing a network of supposed experts to tell them how far they can make inroads on the First Amendment, amongst other legal protections more than likely. Another way of putting it; they want to know how much criminalizing of dissent they can get away with under the guise of Bush’s war on terrorism, presumably to mitigate the prospective challenges by civil liberties advocates.
The stated purpose of the ‘Center of Excellence’ is “to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of” these vaguely defined forms of dissent, “and methods that can be utilized by” all levels, including “tribal,” of “homeland security officials to mitigate” these forms of dissent. The ‘Center’s’ duties will include contributing “to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating” these forms of dissent. So, to be clear, this ‘Center’ is not to be established in order to identify and properly define these forms of dissent, rather these definitions have already been made in the minds of those supporting this legislation, and this ‘Center’ is to base these definitions in science, giving them a solid concrete position in public opinion, the science industry, the legal profession, etc., so that authorities can have the perceived full support of society when they attack domestic political dissidents. This is essentially the creation of a vast mystical supply of argumentative material for prosecutors who open cases against dissidents, simply for being dissidents. This is the type of phenomenon that will likely change American cultural norms regarding liberty to the extent that people can be politically persecuted without a hint of opposition. It would allow the government to cut a portion out of the population we think of as “us,” so they can create a “them” for ‘us’ to fear so much that we will instinctively condone their persecution. Deeply rooting such concepts in what appears to be science and law can add a great deal of credibility to them in the minds of many people
1984
Nov 14, 2007
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purcased at the price of chains and slavery?” -Patrick Henry
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves” -William Pitt
“dissents”?
growing hatred
Nov 15, 2007
Bush is a PHUCKSTAIN. Mukasey is proof in the pudding. EVERYTHING bush has done is wrong and has been a disaster for this country. Cheney is a Dick. Both of them should be let loose in bhagdad in boxer shorts with nothing else and only a camera man to film what happens as they run for their lives. It should be televised globally so we can all have a laugh wile they reap what they have sewn.
John Hanks
Nov 17, 2007
Anything kept secret is just to avoid scrutiny by the public. In terrorism cases, the terrorists cover their tracks immediately. This is just a pretext for a Nazi takeover by America’s ruling filth.
Bob
Nov 17, 2007
Where is everybody? It sure is quiet on this site.
I’ll say something inflammatory to get people stirred up. Quit blaming everything on President Bush. He’s definitely not the best President we’ve ever had but the majority of voters put him in there twice, so the majority of voters are responsible for what he’s done. The alternatives at the time wouldn’t have been any better for the state of the Union, as far as I can see. Our leaders are just a reflection of who we have become as a people. You could put Winston Churchill or Alexander the Great in charge of our bunch of greedy, lazy and undiciplined slobs and they wouldn’t do any better.
We the people are supposed to be running things here…… remember? We are the problem. We have to start living and thinking free again.
Freedom is a state of mind. It’s natural and it’s governed by four rules that I’ve outlined before in another post(The Coming Economic Collapse of the United States by Michael H.).
I’ll write them again.
1. Every living thing takes care of itself or it dies.
2. Nothing is free.
3. Violence or the threat of violence solves everything.
4. Anything goes, but if you break the first three rules, it will catch up with you.
Think about it. If you are guilty of breaking one or all of those rules, or disagree with them and/or refuse to accept them, you are part of the problem.
Who did it??
Nov 17, 2007
Who should take responsibility for thier actions?? Everyone including Bush. There are no free rides. The future is up to all of us. The truth is what we need. This is the best sight on the web today. It Speaks for the truth.
Bob
Nov 17, 2007
Before you start to badmouth the rules, I’ll say this. I didn’t make them up, they just exist. That is a fact. It would be perfectly possible to have a great civilization without wars and with far less bloodshed than we have now in the human world, if everybody lived by them. Think about it again. It is nature at it’s best and it works.
Bob
Nov 17, 2007
Bush is our elected representative, therefore any responsibility for his bad or good decisions is shared by us all.
Bob
Nov 17, 2007
Yes, I have been drinking again.
susan28
Nov 17, 2007
Bob,
thanks for that refreshing post. i acknowlefge the truth of these rules, even though i don’t like them. as a nihilist i realise that life is a will to power and that “values” is just a euphemism for “preferences” and is purely emotional. “reason cannot displace emotion; only a stronger emotion can displace emotion” -Spinoza.
however, the debate over whether or not Bush was actually elected notwithstanding, our responsibility to defend ourselves extends *far* beyond merely casting votes, and i perceive people like Mukasey as threats to my well-being which need to be defended against, if for no other reason than that the dashing of accountability makes the very act of voting more difficult and less effective. i view him and everyone like him – Bush himself being all but irrelevant – as a threat to my freedom, which i experience as *far* worse a threat than a mere attempt my life. my life is expendable to me, my liberty is not.
28
Bob
Nov 18, 2007
I clicked on your link. Wow. You’re crazy, darlin’. I always thought that MY mind was in a strange place. I guess I am in a strange place, but now I know that there are other strange places to be in and your place is one of them. Cool.
Like the rules say, “anything goes”.
susan28
Nov 18, 2007
John Hanks: laughing at myself here, at first glance i thought you said, “America’s ruling fifth”.. as in column, lol.. but yours works too..
Bob: back atcha babe ;)
Facts not fiction
Nov 18, 2007
Face it this sight rules. No bs here but, the TRUTH like the X files. Drink to that!!!!
Bob
Nov 18, 2007
Let’s not forget that we are discussing this proposed kangaroo court system. I don’t want to get off topic here and get in trouble with the boss again. The point that I want to make is that any type of unjust or oppressive system will have little or no success when trying to control a group of freedom-minded people. Therefore, if our government succeeds in controlling and intimidating us, then we aren’t free people in the first place. To make my point, I will have to use some politically incorrect examples and possibly say more things that will enrage the sensitive people in the audience. Try to bear with me and keep an open mind. I’m not trying to be judgemental or offensive, I’m just making observations.
It is impossible to control a group of people or animals if they think and act like individuals and refuse to be manipulated. Have you ever heard of an expression describing this type of situation as being “like herding cats”? Now you have.
Did you ever wonder why the early colonists paid to import slaves when the continent was crawling with what they called savages? It was because it was not cost effective to enslave the Indians. They couldn’t trust them, they wouldn’t work for them in a reliable manner, and settlers never knew when they were going to get a knife in the back. It was easier to fight the Indians and import Africans. That sounds awful, but it is just a fact. Remember the TV show Roots? Kunta Kinte was my hero on that show and my hypothesis, is that if every imported slave had been like him, they would have stopped the African slave trade. It wouldn’t have been practical to spend all of your time hunting for your slaves and chopping off their feet if you needed them to work for you. Kunta Kinte was a freedom-minded man. Do you see where I am going with this?
Early American settlers were people who left everything behind and set out to try their luck in a new world. They were adventurers, entrepeneurs, explorers and in a lot of cases, people who had nothing left to lose(as the song says). They were freedom-minded people and because of that, they gave the British a lot of trouble. It was more important to them to live free than to just live. Americans set up their own system that respected freedom and they prospered because of it. In 200 years however, their blood has really become diluted. Most of us don’t think like that anymore. That is the only reason we are tolerating oppression.
Susan28. You know, I’ve given it some thought and I don’t agree with your quote that “values” are the same as “preferences” and that reason cannot displace emotion.
“Preference” is choosing your favorite option whereas strong “values” are based on belief in something and leave no room for options. For example, “Live free or die”. That statement is not a choice between two options it is a statement that there is only one way to live.
Reason can also displace emotion. It is called self dicipline. Feel free to argue the point. I liked your little winky smily face and when you called me babe, I blushed. You’re my favorite blogger now. I just hope that you’re a woman named Susan or I’m going to feel really stupid.
susan28
Nov 19, 2007
Bob: brilliant analogy with the “indians”, though to be fair in our analogy, it must be acknowledged that the native Americans had a home-court advantage, while the Africans were kept isolated and disoriented. still, your point is well taken and i’ve often thought the same thing. my family line would’ve ended the moment they removed the chains.. no slaves comin’ outta *my* belly, nosiree..
i agree with your assessment of values but to clarify my original statement: what i meant to convey is that all values are subjective, and in that respect they’re preferences. for instance (to reach wayyyyyy back to the topic) i prefer getting blown up in battle to surviving in captivity, which is how i’d view life under the Bush/Mukasey paradigm of zero consent and zero accountability. that’s a *value* for me. but most people, sadly, value life over liberty, and as alien as that is to me, it’s every bit as valid. so what’s the diff betwen us and the sheeple? preference of one value (call them “intellectual commodities”) over another. red state blue state own your fate, don’t let the bars hit ya on your way thru the watergate, rock the Free State before it’s too late!
basically, the “war on terror” is a meme war, and patriots like Michael and ourselves are the shock troops.
regarding self discipline: what motivates this discipline? a goal. what are goals based upon? desire. what is desire? an emotion. the brainstem. the lizard brain, which evolved *long* before the cerebellum. the latter evolved to serve the former. it’s called “the encephalisation of emotion”. pathetic? humiliating? you betcha. but there it is. you can’t transcend it, but if you understand it you can use it, particularly on your enemies – the neocons are pros at it! what is the strongest human emotion? fear. do the math..
and no pretenders to the throne here, love, there is only one susan 28 online or off.. anything else is just a decimal.
Bob
Nov 20, 2007
Susan28. I understand exactly what you are saying. Mark Twain had an essay called “What is Man?” that basically says the same thing. He argues that we are just a machine driven only by one desire and that is the desire to secure our own approval. He had me going for awhile and there is a lot of truth in the idea but there are some questions in the story that he didn’t answer to my satisfaction. Here’s one of them, and you brought it up when you said “there is only one susan28″.
When talking about individuality, he was forced to consider the idea of a soul and he couldn’t explain it. If you start thinking soul, you have to wonder where it came from and why. It’s a bunch of worms that won’t go back in the can. I’m not a church nut, (if that’s what you’re thinking) but if you start to look for them, you’ll start to see forces at work here that aren’t coming from us. Things happen that are just too bizarre to be coincidence. The more you look, the more you see.
You’re right, fear is one damn powerful emotion but if you think it’s the big one, you haven’t really felt the other ones yet.
Fear, however is the one emotion that keeps me from pokin’ around on your website. It’s real interesting there but I don’t want to see my computer blow up.(here kitty, kitty…..what’s up with that?)
Just to stay on topic….how about that Mukasey jerk?? What’s he trying to pull?
Bob
Nov 20, 2007
If you are wondering what emotions I’m talking about, it’s okay. I’m wondering what’s going to happen if I click those icons on your page. Stalemate.
susan28
Nov 20, 2007
’salright, Bob.. paranoia is, afterall, nothing more than a healthy understanding of the way the world works, and will serve you well in the Age of Terror that Mukasey, Terwilliger
, and AQ et al are ushering in.. as a Libertarian i renounce the initiation of force (including computer hacking and disappearing people at will), but by all means go with your gut..
the description box on my contact link is both a flirtation and a challenge, but regarding your own challenge:
i have some theories – hinted at in both my post and yours, and from the throes of which no amount of drinking can save the bold (been there), though i commend your efforts on both accounts!! – which we discuss ad nauseum on the yahoo group OnlineNihilism, where you may safely interact with myself and like minds without braving the links on my site or hijacking threads on political forums (thanks for the leeway Michael).. from what i’ve read here they’d love to have you, but i’m sure you’ll agree we need to exercise some “self discipline” (sic) here now *wink* ..
susan28
Nov 20, 2007
just in from Bill Nelson (D-Fl) fyi:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. I appreciate hearing from you, and I respect your views.
As you may be aware, Judge Mukasey was confirmed by the Senate to be the next Attorney General by a vote of 53-40. I voted against his confirmation because I found the views he expressed on executive power to be troubling and his refusal to state his views on the illegality of waterboarding to be indefensible.
Despite my opposition to his confirmation, Judge Mukasey assured me that he would make depoliticizing and restoring credibility to the Justice Department a top priority. Now that he has been confirmed, I will support his efforts to restore the reputation and independence of the Justice Department and make sure that he follows through on his commitments in this regard.
susan28
Nov 20, 2007
re: what Mukasey’s up to, i think it’s somewhere on the continuum of the following, which i found while seeking info on the new FEMA program of encouraging clergy to begin preaching Romans 11 (which tells people all governments are ordained by God and to obey them even if it seems wrong) in anticipation of martial law:
This article which advocates the abolition of elections, and the establishment of George Bush as President for life, was pulled off of the Family Security Matters web site, but it’s still in the Google cache. According to one news commentator, the person who runs the web site from behind the scenes, is none other than James Woolsey, former director of the CIA.
==========================
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
# #
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. [a regular Kissinger -28]
susan28
Nov 20, 2007
ps: notice in the above article the author makes repeated reference to “the citizens of Western Civilisation”. and is careful never to mention the word “citizen” and the word “America” in the same sentence after his opening canard of “the majority of American citizens” “electing” Bush president, the clear implication here is that that was the last official act of any American as a citizen of their own country before joining the nebulous ranks of “Western Civilisation”.
Bob
Nov 22, 2007
Susan28. I just read the Nihilist Manifesto. What the heck are you worried about this Mukasey court system for? A world full of Nihilists would be a hell of a lot worse from what I can tell. I read parts of it two or three times just to make sure I was getting it right. It made me feel ill and I slept with the .44 under my pillow last night. What’s a girl like you doing with a bunch like that?
susan28
Nov 22, 2007
Bob: can’t recall the manifesto right off hand, but there are two schools, political and philosophical. i’m more the latter, but infact i think Mukasey is a political nihilist and as such makes me huddle close to my own precious hardware at night.
for me it’s simply a jumping-off point: a mindset of operating with no fluffy illusions about human nature, in other worlds: the acknowedgment of your 4 rules. this leaves one free to create one’s *own* value system. it doesn’t mean being valueless, it just means not being a mindless tool who gets their values from external sources or is driven by delusion.
i’m a pessimist and a cynic, but i’m not a sadist or a tyrant. proponents of religion say without it people would behave violently and immmorally, but i say it merely justifies those things, and that people who take *personal* responsibility for their value system are the only *truly* trustworthy people on this planet.
the fact is the world *is* full of nihilists, Christians and Muslims at the top of the list (both view this life as as a chamber of horrors, the difference between them and myself being that i don’t invent apologist tripe like “heavenly reward” to justify it), but the *acknowledged* nihilist doesn’t let the harsh truths of existence make them neurotic.
my values are: Liberty, self-determination, personal responsibility, and community accountability. to convince others to embrace these (self-created, or perhaps inborn but certainly not “God breathed”) values in a world governed by “the 4 rules” and run by people who *get off* on them, like i believe the elites of the world who run our governments do, is the challenge. without delusions like, “our leaders would never do anything that wasn’t in the the best interest of the masses and we can trust them because they want to protect America”, i can put myself in the mind of the enemy and better anticipate its motives, and therefore actions.
the dream of the enemy is a world without dissent in which participatory democracy is either enervated or jettisoned altogether, with critical thinking taught only to their own kind, and mindless obedience for the rest of us. everything Bush, Mukasey and co are doing is reinforcing that, and it’s easier to see if put in historical perspective. google “john taylor gatto” and read his essays on the history of compulsory education and you’ll read its architects’ (Carnegie, Rockefeller et al) goals in their own words, which are just as shamelessly candid (which i admire actually, despite loathing their values) as the guy in my previous post that openly advocates a Bush dictatorship. you’ll see that secrecy, acculturated ignorance and most of all coercion are the hallmarks of *all* their works, both social and political.
a non-nihilist would have a hard time believing humans are capable of such sheer disdain for their fellow creature. i have no such delusions. this stuff isn’t the exception, it’s the *rule* .. or should i say, “the rules” ..
this is another reason why i call values “preferences”: to place *responsibility* on the value-holder and deny them (and myself) the comfortable rationalisation of self-righteousness obtained from a hypocritical value system. when somoene says, “i can’t”, i say, “no, you simply *won’t*”, such as when people like Mukasey say they’re doing what’s “good for America”, i say: “define your terms”.
so you keep that .44 close, baby, because when everything you hold dear has been destroyed, everyone you trust has betrayed you, and everything you hold sacred has revealed itself to be profane, it will remain your one and only friend.
because those are the rules.
ps happy thanksgiving :)
Bob
Nov 23, 2007
In the words of Tom Petty, “somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some”.
It isn’t all bad, there are a few good people out there. I know some of them and I can trust them as much as they can trust me. There are a few things that are truly sacred too. You just have to see them. Get out of the city. I live North of you, not many people, it’s nice. But then I grew up out in the sticks and I’m used to it.
We still have a conversation going over at the “Coming Economic Collapse” topic. Reading that will make you want to head for the hills.
Mukasey doesn’t matter. He will soon be trying to just take care of his own butt, like everybody else. Get yourself ready, darlin’. Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
I’ll google this John Taylor Gatto dude.
susan28
Nov 23, 2007
cool beans Bob, i’ll hop right on over to that thread, just heard about the Liberty Dollar folks getting raided for producing their Ron Paul Liberty Dollars as a violation of the legal monop.. i mean tender law.
here’s a great smattering of Gatto works, one of which expresses the precise sentiment in your post about getting into the country to center onesself (wish me luck, first attempt at xhtml).
susan28
Nov 23, 2007
ok let me try this once more then i’m off the thread for a bit:
Bob
Dec 22, 2007
Susan 28. I’ve been drinking again and I’m afraid I ranted on a few subjects here tonight. Hope all is well with you in the world of the Nihilists. Have a good Christmas.
Bob
Dec 23, 2007
I just listened to Jackson Browne doing “Rock Me On The Water”. Good song. Johnny Rivers did a good version too. You kids don’t listen to music like that anymore.
Bob
Dec 23, 2007
And Pink Floyd-Comfortably Numb.
Bob
Dec 23, 2007
Hey Jude was in there too.
Bob
Dec 23, 2007
And the Stones-Let it Bleed. Bob Seger just sang me a song and so did Neil Young with Robbie Robertson and the Band. These computers are allllright.
susan28
Dec 23, 2007
ah, Neil’s my boy.. “down by the river” says it all.. as does “sympathy for the devil” .. i’m not exactly a kid i’m .45, but two things made me vow to always embrace the new and never become one of those curmudgeons that is stuck in their college years. when Punk first came about i hated it. it seemed so snot-nosed. then i bought Neil’s “Decade” album, which had a photo of him wearing a Sex Pistols T-shirt, and gave them another listen, and darn if they didn’t have some truth to tell.. it took Neil to open my mind (yet again). the other was Rush’s “new world man”, who knows constant change is here to stay. those were seminal moments of my youth.
hey can you link me to that financial-collapse thread you said you were posting on here? i searched but couldn’t find it.
Merry Christmas to you as well, my friend.. you too Michael.. Hampton that is, heh.. what the heck, Mukasey too..
Bob
Dec 24, 2007
Scroll up this page to just about the top. On the left hand side, click on March ‘07 in the “News by Date” column. Scroll down to “The Coming Economic Collapse of the United States”. Click on that and enjoy. I’m arguing with Glen now.
I never liked Rush…tried because of peer pressure but Geddy wasn’t for me. If it has a recognizable melody and/or some thought provoking or fun lyrics I’ll usually recognize it as music though and I don’t care how old or new it is.
I saw Johnny Rotten on Judge Judy one time and enjoyed it but never was a fan.
I had a real thing for Sheryl Crow when she came out and I liked that Stacy’s Mom song. There is no accounting for my taste in music. I think the best song Neil Young ever wrote was Harvest Moon.
roataan
Dec 25, 2007
How did we go from secret courts to Neil Young? Oh yeah!! we became totally involved in ourselves again, that western civilization thing.
As for secret courts: Fascism comes wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross-Sinclair Lewis.
Jan 29, 2008
5 GigaWatt Lizard » Mukasey: Longing for Mother England