Hedges writes: "The fate of the nation, we understood, could be decided by the three judges who will rule on our lawsuit against President Barack Obama for signing into law Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)."
Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges. (photo: Truthdig)
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
One way that could remove the legalized corruption is by filing multiple lawsuits challenging the Santa Clara (corporate personhood) and Buckley (“money is speech”) Supreme Court decisions, but stopping short of challenging Citizens United.
Chief Justice Roberts recently voted to preserve Obamneycare. Similarly, in ruling on the proposed lawsuits, one of the five conservative Justices may “pull a Roberts” and be recognized in history as a great American patriot for saving the nation from continuing to go down the tubes because of the legalized corruption and bribery of our elected leaders.
Polls indicate that about 80% of the citizenry are disgusted with the obscene amounts of money-in-politi cs, hence I infer that there will be widespread public support for these lawsuits as they wend their way to the Supreme Court for consolidation and resolution.
The dysfunctional Congress, no longer corrupted by money-in-politi cs, would be enabled to enact urgently needed legislation in the public interest. Such as to pave the way for public financing of elections, free airtime for congressional candidates, universal health care, raising essential revenue from those who can best afford to supply it, and exerting world leadership in preventing and mitigating global warming.
Contact me at r.cohen@ieee.org
I hope you win. It's urgent. By the same token, the abuse of the NDAA is precisely the reason why we need an armed citizenry.
What are you going to do if the military tries to detain you under NDAA? Shoot at Blackhawk helicopters with a deer rifle?
Even if a hundred concerted arrest-resister s wielded automatic assault weapons, the military would crush them with a fleet of Blackhawks & drones & platoons of tanks & other on-ground machines the assault weapons could not penetrate & cluster bombs & soon even death rays (see, e.g., http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2214523/U-S-Army-soon-using-laser-guns-battlefield.html AND http://rense.com/general40/usmil.htm ).
No resistance could prevail against the US military.
The 2nd amendment is a creature of the musket-and-sabe r age. Its drafters could not anticipate the military might of the Third World U.S.'s corporate state.
If the Supreme Court does not hold the NDAA invalid, our frail, trembling democracy will be doomed.
I, a 72-year-old, cling to a wish that I die naturally, in freedom, before no-trial, non-court-order ed military detentions & government-wrou ght assassinations become normal "process."
Guerrilla war occurs in Afghanistan. But the Taliban remains ousted & has not wrought any change. Afghanistan remains hopelessly poor & undemocratic & corrupt. A few U.S & NATO forces are killed or wounded. But the bloodbaths & huge sufferings are the plights of ordinary folks & resisters. The same happened, and still happens, in Iraq.
The U.S. did not lose militarily in Vietnam. It lost the Vietnam war politically in the U.S. The Vietnamese --- not Americans --- suffered stunningly monumental numbers of casualties.
You seem to imply you would encourage, perhaps join in, a guerrilla campaign of ordinary U.S. folks fighting a war of attrition against far the greatest military might ever --- a war of assault-gun-wie lding, IED-planting common folks & Pollyanna Kamikazes hiding in basements & skulking in alleys. Millions would die. Millions would be maimed.
Rather than injure physical plant & other buildings & infrastructure the corporate state deems valuable, the military would use weaponry that destroys people but not structures. Eventually the slaughter's vast enormousness & enormity would quench rebellion. Infrastructure & business structures & the 1%'s estates would be intact. The remaining ordinary folk would submit to being used as the corporate state wishes.
Do you encourage THAT?
Leave me out of it. I wish to live my remaining few years in humble peace.
The understanding of the "State" as growing directly out of the "Police" and the army, and intended for no other purpose than to enforce property dates back much, much farther. The original organization of Athens is based on military districts which not only yield a fixed quota of troops but also revenues to fund mounted archers who are slaves - the first police force. The rule of the demos, i.e. "democracy", grows directly from this. The innovation here, is not the "fairness" of the Athenian democracy. In fact it is a huge step backward from the Greek Tribes which were based on consensus and one vote for each adult. In place of that, the "Democracy" recognizes only one out of every 32 people as citizens. It's key is not its incorporation of the people (except for those formally so defined), but in its organization of the state, and through it, the guarantee of personal property, most importantly in slaves.
This is yet another example of a thing we see through a thick fog, whereas those who came before us had a much clearer view.
Twenty five hundred years after inception of democracy, we still do not understand that we were ruled by Pentacosiomedim ni, Solon's aristocracy who could generate 500 bushels of goods annualy. Nothing has changed in the meantime.
Your account is accurate & applicable near-universall y back-and forth through time & geography.
Except joining one of the few remaining Kalahari Bushman bands (if it were foolish enough to accept civilized humans), just one solution obtains: Small, uninteresting, agrarian Kropotkinian-an archist communities set where non-agrarian natural resources do not feed greed.
The trouble is: most folks are too scared or lazy & sutured to "smart phones" & empty fun (or worse) & dreams of wealth.
But see Leonard R. Jaffee, "Empathic Adjustment--An Alternative to Rules, Policies, and Politics," 58 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1161 (1990).
Thank you for that cogent, coherent, and erudite contribution !
In Plato's "Republic" the imagined "perfect" society run by "Philosopher Kings" only allowed the vote, and the chance to hold public office, to men who owned land. Plato concluded that the only way we could vote for trustworthy men to take office was to have the offices open ONLY to those who could prove that they DID NOT WANT the office, because they could make more farming. This, of course, stayed in the realm of Plato's fancy !
Similarly, when this country was famously founded in favor of "We The People...", the legal definition of "people" at the time included ONLY Free, White, Male Landowners, over 21.
*NO ONE else was a legally-defined person at that time.
We were founded as an Oligarchy, and such we remain.
"Fair", sadly, is a concept valid only in the world of children.
ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN !!!
They have, as I'm sure Mr. Hedges is aware, an almost bottomless pit of lawyers and funds that they just use to wear down, ruin and eventually prosecute anyone "They don't Like".
Hell, when I married my first wife and applied for a Green Card so I could work here, they grilled the shit out of me, called me an "Ex-Communist" told me things about my lefty-UK Labor, CND and anti-war activism and arrests that I'd long forgotten about. They even accused me of getting married so I could stay here (My reply was "what makes you think I want to stay here?) then tried link me with my late ex-wife's activism on behalf of Denis Banks and the American Indian Movement post "Wounded Knee 11" BEFORE WE EVER MET!
I very much doubt I'd be allowed in as a resident in these ever more paranoid times, married or not.
If they want you, they'll get you somehow and I salute Hedge's courage in going after them, exposing even by his persistence, their attempts at rationalization of what is really a totalitarian-in spired act against dissidents at home and abroad.
"Todo para la Patria" indeed!
The President sanctions remote-control killing by drone attacks and the arrest of American civilians by the US military, something long held as a definite prohibition.
In the Senate too a vast majority voted for the NDAA despite appeals from millions of Americans to reject indefinite detention.
The only logical reason for all this has to be that they are compelled by a lobby that is determined to keep us in a state of perpetual war.
For Gawd's sake, 'cordleycoit" is obviously talking about (where are) the corporate punditocracy that makes up the what the owner-media calls reporters. Hedges is reporter indeed -a true reporter who isn't afraid to stand behind his reporting, which puts real emphasis on the difference that 'cc' is simply and rightly pointing out.
Save your criticism for the owner media.
If cordleycoit means everything you attribute to him/her, Then cordleycoit needs to be the one to say so. Writing without clarity, if that *is* the case, is clatter and noise.
cordleycoit needs to be able to state his/her position without the benefit of a benevolent and self-appointed interpreter.
SOF has a valid point. From all that "cc" actually *did* say, SOF's response is entirely germane to the comment.
SOF has the right to speak in any way of his/her choice.
If 'cc" needs "saving" s/he can ask for it.''
The reporters not Corporately owned, like Hedges himself, are doing all they can to stay out of GITMO !
If citizens are concerned about this then they need to complain to their representatives.
This provision in the NDAA does not represent the death of our democracy. Democracy is a process that ensures the people get the government they deserve. Without even thinking and considering the consequences, many Americnas voted for those who made perfectly clear that perpetual war was their goal.
Blaming Obama is cry baby nonsense.
This is a little vague to be taken seriously. One can only guess at what you are referring to.
However, as the facts of history show changes to the NDAA make by Congress were after demands by the Obama Administration.
Your assertion that "Blaming Obama is cry baby nonsense," is itself nonsense.
The fault lies with those Congressional hardliners who insisted on the provisions in the first place. wwway is correct; they need to be voted out by everyone who values due process.
Both major presidential candidates favored perpetual war. I'm sure many people weighed the consequences, but went for the lesser of two evils.
Did you vote for an anti-war third party candidate?
Labor Party 2016.
RSS feed for comments to this post