Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Must see VIDEO: Daniel Ellsberg Interview The day after the next 9/11..

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:26 AM
Original message
Must see VIDEO: Daniel Ellsberg Interview The day after the next 9/11..
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 10:29 AM by hiley
Daniel Ellsberg Interview






The day after the next 9/11 our freedoms are gone.


In 1971, as a Defense Department Official and Vietnam Vet, he "released" 7,000 pages of Nixon's secret war plans, "The Pentagon Papers", to The New York Times. Placing him at the top of Nixon's "Enemies List" and having Henry Kissinger call his "The most dangerous man in the world!"





New York City
April 26,2006

Run Time 4 Minutes
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13540.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Just read the Reichstag Fire Decree...
and you will see how close we are now:

Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State

On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:

§ 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom < habeas corpus >, freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. So, lets spitball this scenario...Bush issues his own Decree
for the Protection of People and State.

How does America react?

I'm not sure there would be any uprising against that kind of tyranny.

What are your thoughts?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. We are fucked
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 04:08 PM by LibertyorDeath
The sheeple will gather round Der Fuhrer and hang on his every word.


John Negroponte as the head of all intelligence is all any thinking person needs to
know.
This war on terror is about turning America into a fascist state.

John Dimitri Negroponte (born July 21, 1939) (IPA <ˌnɛgroʊˈpɑnti>) is a career diplomat currently serving as United States Director of National Intelligence. Prior to this appointment, Negroponte served in the United States Foreign Service from 1960 to 1997. He has various tours of duty as a United States Ambassador, including a three-year ambassadorship to the Philippines from 1993 to 1996. He subsequently served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2001 until 2004, and was U.S. ambassador to Iraq from June 2004 to April 2005.

He is considered a controversial figure by some because of his involvement in the covert funding of the Contras and the coverup of human rights abuses carried out by CIA-trained operatives in Honduras in the 1980s. According to The New York Times, Negroponte carried out "the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinistas government in Nicaragua."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. If there were ever a population of people docile enough for conversion
to the Police State, it's the American population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yes I'm sure they've noticed that also.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. We have a dictatorship, the Constitution means nothing to these traitors
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 11:03 AM by hiley
Upon being hauled away, the bewildered detainee was told: "Based on Article One of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State of 28 February 1933, you are taken into Protective Custody in the interest of public security and order. Reason: suspicion of activities inimical to the State."

That February 28 decree had been used by the 50,000 brown-shirted SA storm troopers and black-coated SS men sworn in as auxiliary police to justify mass arrests of political opponents during Hitler's seizure of power. There were so many people in custody in the spring of 1933 that Germany's conventional prisons were quickly swamped. As a result, 'wild' prison camps sprang up like mushrooms.

These outdoor 'wild' camps were little more than improvised barbed-wire stockades where prisoners were subjected to military-style drills and random beatings. The storm troopers soon discovered that desperate family members would gather up whatever money they could find to ransom their loved ones out of the place. Thus began a lucrative practice of hauling off prisoners simply to hold them until sufficient ransom was received.

<clip>

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-dachau.htm

edit to add:

Nazification of Germany vs.
Nazification of America
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Nazification_GermanyvsAmer.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Also: Jar Jar's resolution giving Senator Palpatine power.
"If you are not with me, then you are my enemy." --Darth Vader
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Conflicting emotions watching this:
1.) Relief that I'm not the only one who worries about this scenario.

2.) Horror realizing that I'll probably have to live through it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It is horrific when the realization hits!
I have accepted this a while back but still at times it shakes me up all over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. It's not if, it's when and I think sooner than later.
And yes, we most certainly are going to have to
figure out how to live through it.
That's the really scary part.
Americans have sat docile through the
reports of war crimes and torture, stolen elections,
corporate looting and the use of mercs on
civilians, all the while thinking,
"It can't happen here."
Which is exactly what the good Germans
sat around thinking before their neighbors
began to disappear.
Oh, we are so fucked.
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. BeHereNow
your right we are fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. The signs are becoming ominous, eh?
Kinda like that peculiar dark green sky before a tornado... :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. a must-see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. MUST see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kick!
Scary as hell! He's absolutely right. Now is not the time to be complacent. If there was ever a time when we as Americans so desperately had to stand up for our constitutional freedoms and democracy, now is the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebuzzard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
10. here is our maverick
I am honored to have viewed this clip. Kick this up.
I bow to this presentation.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. A State Of Emergency
A state of emergency




Bush is a danger to the constitution in his wartime capacity as commander in chief


Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday June 1, 2006
The Guardian

Within the Bush administration something that senior officials call the "war paradigm" is the central organising principle. They do not use the phrase publicly, but they bend policy to serve it. After September 11 the war paradigm was instantly adopted. George Bush, who proclaimed "I'm a war president", assumed the paradigm as his natural state and right. According to its imperatives, the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances. Some of the paradigm's expressions include Bush's fiats on the treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance and international law, and his more than 750 "signing statements" - interpretations of laws that he claims he can implement as he chooses.

<clip>

In the short run, Bush's defence of his war paradigm may precipitate three constitutional crises. In the first, freedom of the press is at issue. On May 21 Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, announced the possibility that the New York Times would be prosecuted for publishing its Pulitzer prize-winning article on the administration's domestic surveillance. "It can't be the case," he said, that the first amendment trumps the right of the government "to go after criminal activity".
In the second case, a wartime executive above the law may be asserted. Last week the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who charged the vice-president's former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice, made plain his intention to summon Cheney to the witness stand to impeach Libby's credibility or else commit perjury himself. But will the administration fight the subpoena as an infringement on a unitary executive that should be immune from such distractions in wartime?

In the third case, if either house of Congress should fall to the Democrats in the November midterm elections, the oversight suppressed during one-party rule would be restored. Would the administration refuse congressional requests for documents as it did when the Democratic Senate in Bush's first year asked for those pertaining to Cheney's energy taskforce, which reportedly included Enron's CEO Ken Lay, last week convicted on numerous counts of fraud?

<clip>

The question at the heart of Bush's politics is whether that can be indefinitely suspended and the constitution radically revised.



<clip>
MORE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1787109,00.html

I believe it has gone way past Bush being a danger to the Constitution.
Really, they have wiped their collective asses with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Fascism: Power Surge – The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 03:43 PM by hiley
Even the ultra-conservative CATO Institute is screaming. Their latest report on our slide into Fascism: Power Surge – The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush

http://cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf



Cheney's secret classifications

Posted by Mark Silva at 2 pm CDT

The government slowed down somewhat last year in the classification of top secret and confidential information, and it also declassified slightly more documents than had been opened up the year before.
But the numbers still rank among record-levels: With 14 million decisions made last year to classify information, a slight decline from the 2004 record, and 29.5 million pages declassified last year -- far fewer than the 100 million pages declassified in 2001.

And once again, Vice President Dick Cheney, who has refused to report on his office's classification activities since 2003, is missing from the count.

Despite an executive order signed by President Bush in 2003 requiring all agencies or “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information’’ to report on its activities, the vice president’s office maintains that it has no legal obligation to report on its classification decisions.

Cheney’s office told the Chicago Tribune in an April report on the administration’s propensity for secrecy that it is under no duty to report this information. The vice president maintains that his office is not an agency, and is also unique in serving both an executive role and legislative role - the vice president is president of the Senate.
But monitors of government secrecy maintain that the vice president is flouting his own president’s authority in this matter.



<clip>

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/05/cheneys_secret_.html

Cheney aide is screening legislation

Adviser seeks to protect Bush power


By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff

May 28, 2006WASHINGTON --



The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power, according to former White House and Justice Department officials.

The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush a dministration's leading architect of the ``signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

The Bush-Cheney administration has used such statements to claim for itself the option of bypassing a ban on torture, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and numerous requirements that they provide certain information to Congress, among other laws.

Previous vice presidents have had neither the authority nor the interest in reviewing legislation. But Cheney has used his power over the administration's legal team to promote an expansive theory of presidential authority. Using signing statements, the administration has challenged more laws than all previous administrations combined.




<clip>

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/28/cheney_aide_is_screening_legislation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. Our Congress in action.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. perfect pic for this thread, thank you!
in fact frighteningly perfect.

O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts

by Nina Totenberg
Morning Edition, March 10, 2006 ·

Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.

Listen here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712

Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship

· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.
In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.
Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."
She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

<clip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729396,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. That pretty much describes what we've got
Photos of that era do not seem so impossible any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
20. He is so right.
I really believes, Bush and the Cronies will cause another 9/11, so he can have his Marshal law and stay in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
22. ttt n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
23. That is so scary
and most of the people I know don't even care for more than the 30 seconds it takes to comprehend his words.

Ellsberg must be right. Please, let there never be another 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. yes, it is very scary
and I believe Ellsberg & the many other warnings or signs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
25. Be afraid
Be very afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
29. Iraq's Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 08:59 AM by hiley
Iraq's Pentagon Papers

This unjustified war is waiting for its whistle-blower, says the leaker of Vietnam's secret history.

By Daniel Ellsberg,
Daniel Ellsberg was put on trial in 1973 for leaking the Pentagon Papers, but the case was dismissed after four months because of government misconduct.

June 11, 2006

A JOINT resolution referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) calls for the withdrawal of all American military forces from Iraq by Dec. 31. Boxer's "redeployment" bill cites in its preamble a January poll finding that 64% of Iraqis believe that crime and violent attacks will decrease if the U.S. leaves Iraq within six months, 67% believe that their day-to-day security will increase if the U.S. withdraws and 73% believe that factions in parliament will cooperate more if the U.S. withdraws.

If that's true, then what are we doing there? If Iraqis don't believe that we're making things better or safer, what does that say about the legitimacy of prolonged occupation, much less permanent American bases in Iraq (foreseen by 80% of Iraqis polled)? What does it mean for continued American armored patrols such as the one last November in Haditha, which, we now learn, led to the deaths of a Marine and 24 unarmed civilians?

It was questions very much like these that were nagging at my conscience many years ago at the height of the Vietnam War, and that led, eventually, to the publication of the first of the Pentagon Papers on June 13, 1971, 35 years ago this week. That process had begun nearly two years earlier, in the fall of 1969, when my friend and former colleague at the Rand Corp., Tony Russo, and I first started copying the 7,000 pages of top-secret documents from my office safe at Rand to give to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

<clip>

Two other similarities between then and now: First, though it was known to only a handful of Americans, President Nixon was making secret plans that September to expand, rather than exit from, the ongoing war in Southeast Asia — including a major air offensive against North Vietnam, possibly using nuclear weapons. Today, the Bush administration's threats to wage war against Iran are explicit, with officials reiterating regularly that the nuclear "option" is "on the table."

<clip>

http://tinyurl.com/mtqaa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. ,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC