Print

Boardman writes: "In September 2001, it was no mystery to anyone who thought clearly - even Senator McCain - that the AUMF was an anti-constitutional blank check for presidential war-making, freed by design from any check by Congress's constitutional war-making authority."

The US has been at war since 2001. (photo: AP)
The US has been at war since 2001. (photo: AP)


The Militant American Empire

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

21 May 13

 

The militant American empire doesn't need any more AUMF

n September 14, 2001, Congress authorized the president to wage unfettered, permanent war against pretty much anyone the president, in his sole discretion, deemed related to the 9/11 attacks and any future attacks. On September 18, 2001, President Bush signed this authorization into law.

The United States has been in a permanent state of war ever since. And on May 16, 2013, the Obama administration's Pentagon officials testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that they expected this permanent state of war to last another 10 to 20 years.

This came as an apparent surprise to some senators, including John McCain, the Arizona Republican who voted for the initial authorization: "This authority ... has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001."

Also expressing surprise was Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, who joined the Bush administration in the summer of 2002, serving in the Defense Department's General Counsel office and later in the Justice Department, where his work in the Office of Legal Counsel contributed to, but failed to mitigate, the administration's "legalization" of torture. This failure contributed to his resignation in June 2004.

After the Armed Services Committee hearing, Goldsmith commented: "I learned more in this hearing about the scope of the AUMF than in all of my study in the last four or five years…. I thought I knew what the application [of the AUMF] meant, but I'm less confident now."

Is the AUMF an Authorization to Use Military Force Forever?

The AUMF referred to by Goldsmith is the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed in 2001. While Goldsmith was in the Bush administration, the AUMF served as the basis for legitimizing the American attack on Afghanistan, among others (not Iraq).

The AUMF is a relatively brief document (the full text appears at the end of this article) that expresses post-9/11 fear and panic, as well as a desire to give the president flexibility to protect the country against any further attacks.

The operative section of the AUMF says, in its entirety:

(a) IN GENERAL - That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The only other operative section gives the president pre-clearance with regard to the requirements of the War Powers Act.

On its face, the AUMF imposes no specific restrictions on the president's freedom to wage war in any way he chooses, by any means he chooses, on any entity or person he chooses. Arguably, there is an implied limitation on the targets, but there is no definition of "aided" the terrorist attacks, creating a loophole big enough for any decent White House lawyer to waltz through with a herd of elephants.

And that loophole is rendered meaningless by the stated purpose of the law - "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" - since "preventing future acts" is a concept that has no meaning unless it has no limitation.

In September 2001, it was no mystery to anyone who thought clearly - even Senator McCain - that the AUMF was an anti-constitutional blank check for presidential war-making, freed by design from any check by Congress's constitutional war-making authority.

In 2001, Authorizing Permanent War Was Bi-Partisan

Given this blatant abdication of Constitutional responsibility by Congress, one might assume the AUMF's passage was controversial and fraught with high-minded argument. It was not. It passed both houses easily, without meaningful debate.

In the house, 420 Representatives voted for the AUMF, co-sponsored by Republican Richard Armey and Democrat Richard Gephardt. Ten members (five of each party) did not vote. The identical Senate version of the AUMF, co-sponsored by Democrat Thomas Daschle and Republican Trent Lott, passed 98-0 with two Republicans not voting.

The only principled vote on the AUMF - the lone vote against it in the House - was cast by California Democrat Barbara Lee. Like the rest of her colleagues, Lee was ready to authorize the president to strike back against those who had attacked us. As she wrote in part at the time:

Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war.

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events - anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

And so it has, thousands of innocent lives in at least half a dozen countries. Lee's warning was Cassandra-like in its futility: "The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action."

Her courage and wisdom, while approved by her Congressional constituents, nevertheless brought a wave of vilification, angry charges of treason, and enough death threats that the Capitol Police assigned her and her family round-the-clock plainclothes bodyguards.

A Bill to Repeal the AUMF Has Been Introduced - Again

On April 24, 2013, Rep. Lee called for the AUMF to be repealed: "I'm convinced that if we do not repeal this authorization to use force that I voted against in 2001, we are going to see this state of perpetual war forever…. The use of drones in many instances creates more hatred, more anger, more hostility toward our country…."

On January 4, 2013, Rep. Lee introduced House Bill H.R. 198, to repeal the AUMF of 2001. She introduced a repeal bill in the previous Congress, but it was not acted on. The bill currently has 12 co-sponsors, all Democrats, and was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 16 was not about repealing the AUMF, but about its "status," as committee chair Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, put it. Since the status of the AUMF is the uncontested law of the land, Levin, who voted for it in 2001, was presumably referring to its continued relevance or applicability.

Among the questions he raised in his opening statement were "the continuing vitality" of the AUMF, its application to organizations unrelated to 9/11, the legal basis for U.S. war-making in Yemen or Somalia, the legal basis for drone strikes, and "How will we know when the current conflict is over?"

Senator Graham Supports President's Unfettered, Global, Endless War Power

For Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, none of this was a problem. With a series of leading questions, the former military lawyer elicited the answers he wanted from the military panel, which included two generals:

that the "war against radical Islam, or terror, whatever description you like" will last another 10 t0m20 years;

that the military has "all of the authorization and legal authorities necessary to conduct a drone strike;"

that the President has the "authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen" or in the Congo, or anywhere in the world, because "when it comes to international terrorism, we're talking about a worldwide struggle."

Only Independent senator Angus King of Maine expressed strong reservations about the AUMF, asking at one point, "How do you possibly square this [AUMF] with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war?"

Later he said: "Now, I'm just a little, old lawyer from Brunswick, Maine, but I don't see how you can possibly read this [AUMF] to be in comport with the Constitution and authorize any acts by the president. You had testified to Senator Graham that you believe that you could put boots on the ground in Yemen now under this—under this document. That makes the war powers a nullity."

After a non-response response from a Pentagon spokesman, Senator King reiterated his argument, concluding in reference to the AUMF: "… the way you read it, there's no limit. But that's not what the Constitution contemplates."

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL - That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements -

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

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

 
+48 # curmudgeon 2013-05-21 15:17
Anyone NOT voting to completely end AUMF needs to be recalled or impeached for treason
 
 
+6 # kitster 2013-05-22 03:44
dream on. the office of the president NEVER gives up a power. administrations come and go...but presidential power and its perpetuation is priority one with every occupant of the oval office. no congress will touch this...because they believe that their man or woman will occupy the potus swivel chair next time.
 
 
+23 # Trueblue Democrat 2013-05-21 15:18
" . . . the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 . . ."

Well, that seems clear enough.

Sadam Hussein did it.

He's dead.

The "Authorization" has thereby expired.

Back to business as usual. "Do I hear a bid for drilling in the Grand Canyon?"
 
 
+7 # mdhome 2013-05-21 18:58
Actually Osama Bin Ladin did it.
 
 
+9 # Trueblue Democrat 2013-05-22 05:48
I'm confused. Osama bin Ladin? Wasn't he a Saudi national? If Saudi's had had anything to do with 9/11 we would have attack Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Besides, the Bin Ladin family was not just a good friend of the US, members of that family were on very intimate terms with the Bush family. Didn't the government go to a lot of trouble to round them up immediately after 9/11 and fly them home, even when all other flights were grounded?

No, it was Sadam Hussein or George W. Bush was a moron/scoundrel /despot/traitor . Take your pick.
 
 
+10 # wantrealdemocracy 2013-05-21 21:22
Sadam Hussein did not attack the United States of Sept 11, 2001. I think that here is evidence that this attack was a joint effort of some American Zionists and the Israeli Secret police. All these wars are in the interests of Israel. We need an independent investigation of the events of 9/11.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2013-05-21 22:32
can you substantiate ANY of the above? -
"attack was a joint effort of some American Zionists and the Israeli Secret police" why wantrealdemocra cy is pushing this lie/nonsense, that will in indirect way benefit apartheid - Jewish State of Israel.
It is old propaganda trick to put out ridiculous statements and when the actual fact against Israel comes out, discredit the source with the like statements above ..
 
 
+2 # intheEPZ 2013-05-22 10:01
Sadam Hussein did it.

He's dead.

The "Authorization" has thereby expired.

But Rummy, Bush 1 and others aided Saddam, providing him with most of his WMD's (95% dismantled by UNSCOM) and helicopters, which Shrub forgot). So should the generals be droning them?
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2013-05-22 11:15
@intheEPZ: Well, no, since it's has come out repeatedly with certainty that Hussein was not at all involved with 9/11(except perhaps in the U.S. media).

More to the point, pathological lying was the major influence in pushing the Iraq War.

Your point about Rumsfeld and Bush 1 can't be denied.

Under Reagan, the U.S. considered Hussein a "moderate," and supplied the means to produce biological/chem ical weapons, WMDs, etc.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2013-05-22 16:09
Under Reagan, the U.S was flying AWACS from Saudi Arabia, to provide intelligence to the Saddam bombers on Tehran (million dies in this war).
Now US and Israel are doing the SAME in Syria .. providing intelligence to the "rebels" ...
 
 
0 # David Starr 2013-05-23 13:12
@Activista: Yes. The U.S., under Reagan, sure contributed to the deaths of the Iran-Iraq War, funding both sides, I believe.
 
 
+43 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-05-21 16:13
The corporations and the military are running/ruining our country. They are killing us. Take back our government.
 
 
+8 # Lennie 2013-05-21 21:20
What would Ike think about this? I think he would be aghast. Military-Congre ssional-Industr ial Complex run completely amok. Out of control. Runaway train...Whateve r one wants to call it. Ultimate self destruction.
 
 
0 # kitster 2013-05-22 03:46
how?
 
 
+15 # Terrapin 2013-05-21 16:52
"Ze EMPIRE vill NOTT be defied! Sieg Heil"
 
 
+7 # tm7devils 2013-05-21 22:30
...and it will not last long...at its present pace...
 
 
+9 # jwb110 2013-05-21 17:16
It may be time to move to a more Democratic country bound under rule of Constitutional Mandate.
 
 
-4 # MidwestTom 2013-05-21 21:05
Hey, that is a right wing idea, what is it doing on here?
 
 
+12 # Working Class 2013-05-21 21:46
Quoting MidwestTom:
Hey, that is a right wing idea, what is it doing on here?

The right wing has no monopoly over the Constitution. As a matter of fact they and the Dem’s are very selective in its reading. A bigger problem is the average citizen has no idea what the Constitution says, or the history of how the Constitution came into being. If we are to get our government to represent us, the common citizens, we need to pull ourselves away from our TV’s and the corporate controlled brain washing that passes for “news”. We need to demand our leaders stop graveling for corporate dollars to finance their campaigns. We need to outlaw the idea a corporation is a person and money is speech. As a people we don’t believe that people with more money should have more political power and those with less money should have little or no say in government. Yet that is where we find ourselves. Get involved people. Organize or surrender. There is no middle ground.
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2013-05-22 04:27
Absolutely correct. We the people are responsible for the politicians we elect. If we don't take that responsibility seriously, then we get what is given to us. And if Americans don't wake up soon, it will be the end of our democracy.
 
 
0 # MidwestTom 2013-05-22 08:27
That was a satirical comment. Our problem is that we all complain, but every election we return over 90% of elected officials to office and then expect change.

We are supposedly in the sequester, but the Democratic controlled Senate wants us in the Syrian war, as shown by their vote to give $250 million in additional military aid to the fanatical Islamic rebels, who are fighting the Christians, and after the war will turn the weapons on Israel. John McCain has never found a war he did not want us in.

We already know that Ambassador Stevens was coordinating secret arms shipments to the rebels; probably why he wasn't rescued. Once we start sending more weapons, what do you think Russia and Iran will do. We are witnessing the M/I complex in action.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2013-05-21 22:53
The right-wing LOVES the Constitution!

Except for everything not included in the 2nd Amendment.

Tell me how right-wingers feel about the Separation of Church and State? How about Freedom of Assembly? I didn't hear any of you right-wingers complaining about the right to protection from unwarranted searches and seizures when the Patriot Act was enacted by a right-wing Congress and president. Where were you right-wingers when your right-wing Congress prevented the closing of Guantanamo?

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!!
 
 
+4 # David Starr 2013-05-22 11:19
@Billy Bob: Today's right-wing especially is a relic of Manifest Destiny and the Gilded Age. They think that's the "natural order of things."
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2013-05-27 11:09
Hey DS:
Sometimes I think I am of the "right wing". If so, you do not know me.

Maybe I'm a Patriot? Hope so anyway.
Do you know any Patriots? T.Paine maybe?

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death." --Thomas Paine


Tell me: What is a David Star or Billy Bob.

Ps. There is no separation of church and state. We can pray wherever we want, or not pray whatever. Freedom of religion really irritates atheists. The Bill of rights is a lovely thing. We should follow it more. It has good principle.
 
 
+24 # reiverpacific 2013-05-21 17:32
Was it ever proven that Bin-laden or even Al-Queda were responsible for the 9-11 attacks? I know that there were many places who danced in the streets and rejoiced but proof is a funny thing when so much assumption overpowers true investigation and reason. Maybe I missed something.
In any case the death, crippling and destruction visited on possibly the wrong countries (After all, most of the hijackers were Saudi but we daren't touch THEM!) and US troops cannon-fodder has been many times multiplied than the 3,000 killed in he Twin Towers, not to mention the subsequent deaths and sickness of first responders and cleanup crews.
AUMF ("Allright U M≠≠≠≠≠≠ F≠≠≠≠s) is bullying on a huge scale instigated by a dim-bulb ignoramus and his bent handlers and manipulators that formed his excuse for an administration, who are some of the very few that profited from the whole debacle and should all be in Guantanamo if it must stay open.
Unfortunately the current administration seems to be comfortable continuing at the helm of this ship which should be sunk without trace. Kudos to Rep' Lee for introducing this repeal but I'd have to be pessimistic about support from Rethugs and Blue-dogs.
 
 
+13 # JSRaleigh 2013-05-21 20:11
Quoting reiverpacific:
Was it ever proven that Bin-laden or even Al-Queda were responsible for the 9-11 attacks?


Yeah, pretty much. At the very least they provided the manpower to hijack the planes.

The only real question is whether the Bush Administration just "Let It Happen On Purpose" or whether PNAC took an active roll in implementing their "New Pearl Harbor".

The Bush Administration' s subsequent incompetence prosecuting the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq (along with everything else they turned their hands to) suggests LIHOP is the more plausible explanation.

Can you name of one thing the Bust administration did in 8 years that they didn't f*** up?
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2013-05-21 20:53
Quoting JSRaleigh:
Quoting reiverpacific:
Was it ever proven that Bin-laden or even Al-Queda were responsible for the 9-11 attacks?


Yeah, pretty much. At the very least they provided the manpower to hijack the planes.

The only real question is whether the Bush Administration just "Let It Happen On Purpose" or whether PNAC took an active roll in implementing their "New Pearl Harbor".

The Bush Administration's subsequent incompetence prosecuting the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq (along with everything else they turned their hands to) suggests LIHOP is the more plausible explanation.

Can you name of one thing the Bust administration did in 8 years that they didn't f*** up?

Well after all, Dimwits has a history of fuckin' up everything he did before he was "Selected" by SCOTUS and he remained true to form during and since his reign of error.
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2013-05-22 04:31
Bin Laden was never charged with anything to do with 9-11 and he was not even sought or wanted for 9-11. The FBI still has its wanted poster on its website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden along with its case against bin Laden. The FBI has never even suggested that bin Laden was a part of a conspiracy to plan or carry out 9-11. Bin Laden is only a media poster boy and political fodder for anyone running for office. Bush was right when he said that he was not interested in bin Laden anymore.

The man charged with being the master mind of 9-11 is Khalid Sheik Mohammad -- a convenient patsy who was picked up in Pakistan.

There never has been any competent criminal investigation of 9-11. There's only been media hysteria about the planning.
 
 
+18 # Billy Bob 2013-05-21 18:59
The attack by individual terrorists on 9-11 was NOT an "existential threat" to the United States of America.

Our over-reaction to it is.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2013-05-22 11:21
@Billy Bob: Your first statement: True without a doubt. Your second statement: Yes, it's been a virtual tradition within U.S. foreign policy.
 
 
+10 # fredboy 2013-05-21 19:36
War is our #1 industry--just as Ike predicted. No checks, no balances, just vast, uncontrolled spending and waste and fraud. A vast industry built on death.

Yet, ironically, we seldom enter frays to enforce justice or depose lawlessness. If we did we would now be fighting the cartels savaging our neighbor nation--instead we fake a war with Iraq. While the hellstorm south of us erupts blood.

Worst is our very nature. If we do not have other nations to hate we tear our nation apart hating one another. That was the greatest danger when the Cold War ended--with no one to hate, we would hate one another. And look at what has happened.
 
 
+3 # Working Class 2013-05-22 09:20
Quoting fredboy:
War is our #1 industry--just as Ike predicted. No checks, no balances, just vast, uncontrolled spending and waste and fraud. A vast industry built on death.

Yet, ironically, we seldom enter frays to enforce justice or depose lawlessness. If we did we would now be fighting the cartels savaging our neighbor nation--instead we fake a war with Iraq. While the hellstorm south of us erupts blood.

Worst is our very nature. If we do not have other nations to hate we tear our nation apart hating one another. That was the greatest danger when the Cold War ended--with no one to hate, we would hate one another. And look at what has happened.

You are so correct. As a historical perspective read “War is a Racket” by Smedley Butler. Butler was the Commandant of the US Marine Corp and a two time recipient of the Metal of Honor. Another good read is “Overthrow” by Stephen Kenzer. The US has a rich and shameful history of using its military to line the pockets of the corporate elite, both inside and out of the Military Industrial Complex.
 
 
+7 # wipster 2013-05-21 21:30
Ike is definitely saying "I so told you so" 52 years ago... and then they killed JFK for having the audacity of trying to stop the Vietnam war before it began.

Sometimes it all makes me want to hit my head against a brick wall...
 
 
+5 # cafetomo 2013-05-21 22:19
"Preventing future acts" seems reminiscent of Minority Report, a 1956 science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick. Phil has been considered by some as the Charles Dickens of science fiction, despite exhibiting some perplexing schizophrenic tendencies. In a writer, this might be considered eclectic, or charming. In the leadership of a warlike nation, not so much.
 
 
+8 # tm7devils 2013-05-21 22:24
...and a crystal ball is not even needed - the greatest country in the World is slowly being brought down by the worst government in the World - its own.
Unfettered greed, selfishness and moral turpitude, with a good helping of religion, is a recipe for our, and the World's, destruction.
I've got, maybe, 20 years left on this planet...and I consider myself lucky. So far.
 
 
+3 # futhark 2013-05-22 06:02
My own hypothesis (and I can't call it a theory without more corroborative evidence) is that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by agents of our surveillance state apparatus in cooperation with the military-indust rial complex with the object of generating public support for curtailing our civil liberties and enabling the military to pursue just such an endless state of war as we have seen over the past decade.

The world was momentarily too stunned to evaluate the evidence and accepted the 19 Islamic radicals armed with box cutters hypothesis without independently considering the case. However, the attacks were hastily planned and carried out, so there are numerous well-establishe d facts not consistent with the orthodox hypothesis, including the collapse of WTC 7, the accounts and video of detonation of demolition devices prior to and during the collapse of the buildings, the technical impossibility of making cell phone calls from speeding passenger jets at high altitude in 2001, and so forth. All these potential objections were whitewashed over and deserve to be reconsidered.

The ongoing war, in no way stopped by our popular Nobel Peace laureate president, is the MIC's answer to the end of the Cold War. We wouldn't want another 1991, with all the nonsensical talk about a "peace dividend", would we?
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-05-22 07:29
I disagree with your hypothesis but I gave you a thumbs up because we agree on every other point. The only reason I disagree is that I don't think they needed to do it themselves. There's a well-documented history that terrorism really does exist and that it's been trying things like this for many years. Nevermind the fact that the terrorism we receive is just blowback for the activities of our own CIA in the 3rd world.

The evidence is just as damning based on what we already know to be true (that bush jr. knew the attack was coming and intentionally did nothing to stop it). Either way, the goal was the same. They didn't produce a several thousand page document (the "Patriot" Act) overnight. It was part of a project the shadowy American right had been cooking up since the '80s.

CONT.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2013-05-22 07:30
CONT.

Few people remember (and there's almost nothing about it on the internet), that Reagan was planning for something like the "Patriot" Act back in the '80s. It was brought up in the time leading up to the Iran-Contra hearings. The prosecutors (typically) didn't pursue it. So, when I mentioned it to people back then and mentioned that DADDY Bush was behind much of it, I was laughed at and called a "conspiracy theorist".

Everything I mentioned at the time (that was too looney to be true) showed up as part of the "Patriot" Act. It's like those of us who were paying attention were witnessing an assassination and couldn't do anything to stop it.

Back then, it was a joke. Now, no one can remember it.
 
 
+5 # fredboy 2013-05-22 07:25
Re-read all the comments above. Collectively, a startling look into our recent past, our present, and our future.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2013-05-22 10:18
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who respect coercive authority and consider it legitimate, and those who do not. The former group is likewise split into two factions: a relatively small group that, for whatever reason, essentially worships power, and a much larger one whose members merely tolerate authoritarianis m, either as a matter of expedience or habit
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-05-22 17:56
True.
 
 
+7 # David Starr 2013-05-22 11:24
Barbara Lee is one of the few Democrats who has a consistent, political spine.
 
 
+1 # Depressionborn 2013-05-23 09:40
Quoting Billy Bob:
True.


Thanks,

for a long time I couldn't believe it, but to know the why and the what of JFK and 911 false flags/assassina tions, simply list what happened or did not happen afterwards:(GS, Nam, ME war),and who benefited.

Ps.
Something odd about the Boston bombing?