Chris Hedges: Why I’m Suing Barack Obama

[Karmadillo]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/16

Published on Monday, January 16, 2012 by Truthdig.com
Why I’m Suing Barack Obama
by Chris Hedges

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.(Photo: AP / Dusan Vranic)

<edit>

But I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up. Consider the arcane criteria that can make you a suspect in our new military-corporate state. The Department of Justice considers you worth investigating if you are missing a few fingers, if you have weatherproof ammunition, if you own guns or if you have hoarded more than seven days of food in your house. Adding a few of the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement to this list would be a seamless process. On the whim of the military, a suspected “terrorist” who also happens to be a U.S. citizen can suffer extraordinary rendition—being kidnapped and then left to rot in one of our black sites “until the end of hostilities.” Since this is an endless war that will be a very long stay.

<edit>

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

more...

[truth2power]

1. Chris Hedges is one of the most credible speakers in opposition to

the predations of American Empire these days. We would do well to listen to him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. +1

[FarLeftFist]

33. Why sue him? Didn't Obama say his administration is looking to repeal it?

Hedges should use Obama as his lawyer.

[Jim Lane]

40. He can't sue President Romney, let alone President Palin

I'm not familiar with the details of this particular lawsuit, but it often happens that a challenge to a governmental action must name an incumbent officeholder. That could be the correct course even if the bill had been passed over Obama's veto -- which, alas, it wasn't.

Obama's announced stance isn't necessarily irrelevant, though. It's sometimes necessary for a plaintiff in a case like this to establish that there's a threat of illegal action against him. There's a possibility that the DoJ could defend the suit by saying that it's not ripe for judicial resolution because the Obama administration isn't planning to do and will not do any of the things that are alleged to be illegal.

Even if that happens, though, the suit could serve a good purpose. It might lay the groundwork for a suit in 2017 challenging the detention practices implemented by President DeMint. Without this suit now, the argument might be made that the 2017 suit is untimely because the Act should have been challenged when enacted. If Hedges's suit is thrown out on ripeness grounds, however, then it sets a precedent that counters that argument.

[Enrique]

45. Obama just signed it

on New Years Eve.

[FarLeftFist]

59. And in the signing statement he says his administration will work on repeals of certain provisions.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Awesome.

Oh, you ate my shit sandwich? Here, have some toothpaste.

[FarLeftFist]

99. Back to reality.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

75. Sure he will.

That will happen right after he closes Guantanamo.

[FarLeftFist]

98. GITMO is still open because a 90-6 SENATE BLOCKED it's closure.

Welcome back to reality.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

100. I didn't see Obama using the bully pulpit

to shame Democrats into voting for closing it. I just see Democrats acting like Republicans.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Don't need funding to abandon it.

We've been ripping off the cubans so long, might as well give them an intact site. A parting present for our bad behavior.

[niyad]

3. one of our members got a letter from his rep, swearing that, during conference, the reference to US

citizens was removed. according to him, it is only everyone else who can be detained forever, as though that makes it right.

[rbnyc]

4. Chris Hedges...

...is a hero.

[ProSense]

5. How

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous.

...absurd!

This is simply more folly: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=107135

Does Hedges really believe that this suit will fly given the existing law and SCOTUS opinion? Did he miss the President's signing statement, which clearly states the administration's position? Not only that, the bill signed by Obama doesn't do what Hedges claims: "Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process"

NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562

Three reasons to vote for Obama even though he signed NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002122711

Since Chris Hedges didn't vote for Obama in 2008, that doesn't apply to him.

[MinervaX]

6. Party above all else, huh?

[ProSense]

7. No

"Party above all else, huh?"

...commonfuckingsense and facts "above all else."

[MinervaX]

10. You mean

"...commonfuckingsense and facts "above all else." "

As along as a Democrat is doing it, it's alright, above all else.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Oakland mayor Jean Quan is a "progressive" Democrat

so her four+ near-lethal police riots against peaceful protesters (and subsequent lies about use of weapons and about the protesters throwing M-80s) are all right! Especially after she was hounded to get rid of them by the local 1%ers.

[ProSense]

14. No

"As along as a Democrat is doing it, it's alright, above all else."

...I mean, don't accuse people of selective outrage. Did Hedges ever sue Bush?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=175047

[MinervaX]

19. Again, when using Bush as a measuring stick for Obama

You've already lost the argument.

[ProSense]

24. Hmmm?

"Again, when using Bush as a measuring stick for Obama

You've already lost the argument. "

Hedges never sued Bush and in fact hyped the War on Terror with NYT colleague Judith Miller. A lot of people were anti-war after the illegal invasion of Iraq.

[Puregonzo1188]

29. As was Hedges. Chris Hedges was against the war before it started, and was one of the most

vocal critics of the Bush Administration. Stop with the revisionist history and outright making stuff up.

I've been on this board for a longtime and you are by far the most dishonest person I've ever encountered on it.

[Agony]

55. I would like to associate myself with your statement

[UnrepentantLiberal]

76. Why? Making stuff up works for Republicans.

Right wing president, right wing smear tactics.

[bvar22]

92. "Stop with the revisionist history and outright making stuff up."

Good Luck with THAT.
Might as well ask a kangaroo to stop hopping.




You will know them by their WORKS.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[donheld]

61. Find me one thing that Chris Hedges ever wrote hyping the war

Just one.

[snot]

63. Hedges lost his job at the NYT despite his Pullitzer BECAUSE he spoke out against the Iraq invasion.

[FarLeftFist]

30. What President are you using as a measuring stick?

[Matariki]

65. Perhaps he didn't sue Bush because he hoped we'd elect a Democratic President

who would overturn Bush's egregious affronts to civil liberties. As opposed to adding to them.

[sabrina 1]

68. No, because like the rest of us at that time, he thought we had options, that once we elected

Democrats we could start restoring the rule of law. Three years after one of the biggest mandates in living memory, thanks to people like Hedges and so many others, things have only gotten worse. I guess Hedges among others have decided that the people have to take matters into their own hands now.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. As an #Occupier who is watching increasingly militarized police harass and profile us

as well as Obama not doing SHIT to protect us from their repeated attacks across the nation and utterly unfair arrests on top of the near-lethal brutality, and protesting looking more and more to them to be low-level terrorism (as already defined in Britain), I say fuck Obama.

[MinervaX]

18. Martin Luther King Jr would not be proud of Obama

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. Ouch. There it is, in a nutshell.

[FarLeftFist]

32. That' a weird thing to say. You forgot the IMHO, because there is no way you could possibly know.

[Number23]

48. I disagree.

See? I can make idiotic proclamations with no basis is reality just like you can.

[MinervaX]

77. At least you admit

that your POV is idiotic.

[Number23]

101. But you don't admit that yours is. So exactly who is being "idiotic" here?

Anyone that would claim that "MLK would not be proud of Obama" is about as clueless as they come in my book. An absolutely impenetrable statement of stupidity, that is.

[Puregonzo1188]

28. That's a kneeslapper.

Have you considered a career as a comedian?

[SomethingFishy]

31. ROFLMFAO....

Coming from you that was really, really funny.

[Enrique]

16. so the case has no merit?

is that an objective assessment, or do you have any biases regarding Obama that might have influenced that opinion?

[Aerows]

35. No one ever seems to get an answer to that question

I've seen it asked by more than a few people, too.

[Hawkowl]

21. Propaganda

And I mean that in the worst sense of the word.

[ProSense]

25. Well,

"Propaganda

And I mean that in the worst sense of the word."

...that's nonsense of the highest order.

[Hawkowl]

37. No critical thinking

Your posts NEVER have any critical thinking involved. It is just always 100% justification. No suggestions for improvement on policy or politics. Everything is ALWAYS 100% perfectly infallible. That, is the definition of propaganda. It doesn't matter if the position changes every month, or even every hour, you are there justifying whatever the word of the day is.

[annabanana]

51. How would this signing statement affect future (possible malicious) administrations?

if at all

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Tee-hee. Hedges is "working within the system" as the moderates advise.

Oh, wait. Fighting draconian laws is only a good thing when Republicans install them.

[ProSense]

12. Did

Hedges ever sue Bush?

He won a Pulitzer for the NYT coverage on the War on Terror.

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

The 2002 Pulitzer Prize Winners: Explanatory Reporting
http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2002-Explanatory-Reporting

"MISSED SIGNALS: Terror Cells Slip Through Europe's Grasp"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Did he sue Clinton? Or, Carter? LBJ?

What's that got to do with it? He's working within the system to stop a horrendous law that gives our government the right to intern people indefinitely without trial.

[sabrina 1]

69. No, he worked to elect Democrats thinking that was the solution.

As we all did. Clearly it was not, so now he's choosing his next option because for some of us, the freedoms many Americans fought and died for are way, way more important than any political party or politician. For MOST Americans as a matter of fact.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Thank you very much for posting this! nt

[Honeycombe8]

15. It'll be thrown out. It's PR is all. Govt officials have immunity from litigation...

for actions done in performance of their duties, I do believe. Otherwise, govt officials wouldn't be able to do anything. They'd be in court all the time, defending what they did or did not do.

I guess you can sue the U.S. government for "cease and desist" or something like that.

You can file a lawsuit for anything. Then the court throws it out, if it's not allowed.

[Enrique]

23. Hamdi v Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

[BrendaBrick]

44. +1

[msanthrope]

56. Hamdi had standing. Hedges doesn't. nt

[gratuitous]

22. Hedges is right, but a court won't touch it

Because he has to have standing to sue, and while practically anyone above the mental capacity of ninnyhammer can see the mischief inherent in this law, a court will simply duck the issue and say that because Hedges hasn't been personally affected by Title X, Subtitle D (yet), he doesn't have standing to bring a suit.

Of course, anyone who does have Title X, Subtitle D applied to him or her will be a terrorist, and the court won't hear their petition either. It's a tidy little Catch-22, designed to put our own government above its law. "Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" are just pretty words, a quaint formulation to soothe the masses, but with not meaning in the real world sense.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. Yes. It means we all have to fight back, to do something, anything

to stop this monstrosity. I love him for so doing, regardless of any outcome. That's what's important, because you never know how far you can take something until you get it going.

#Occupy NDAA

[gratuitous]

27. True fact

If we only took actions that were guaranteed to succeed, we'd never do anything. And perhaps we'll all be shocked, and the court will adjudicate the case on its merits and not duck it.

[hootinholler]

36. ++ n/t

[Make7]

39. OFF-TOPIC: Hey, could you change the [center] tags in your sig?

The [center] tag seems to break the style properties for signatures so I added a special signature centering inline style code to my DU3 HTML Table:

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; border-radius:0.3846em;"][p class=post-sig style=margin-top:0px;text-align:center;]Text[/p]
Just to make it easy for you, here is the whole code for your sig:

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; border-radius:0.3846em;"][p class=post-sig style=margin-top:0px;text-align:center;][b]Avatar in SOLIDARITY with H2OMan[/b] http://hootinholler.com/images/hoothead.png [br /]To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine [/p]
Unless of course your intention was to disable the default style properties in your signature. If that is the case, ignore everything I just posted.

[hootinholler]

41. More a side effect

I will improve it later tonight I have to be somewhere for a little while.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

79. Cool HTML code.

[BrendaBrick]

46. Do you think it might have at least some merit simply because some of the language/definitions

are either vague and/or non-existent?

The article (in part) states:

<snip>

Section 1031 of the bill defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”

<snip>

The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up.

<snip>

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state.

It is very interesting (and timely) to couple Hedges comments on this vague/non existent language of definitions with that of Gene Sharp during an interview in November of last year on a YouTube video entitled: "We The People - Dr. Gene Sharp at Zeitgeist Americas 2011" (little over 30 minutes):

You'll note that around 13:00 or so Sharp mentions that in the US Dept of Defense dictionary, "it does not contain a definition of either "Defense" or of "National Defense", its whatever people want to call defense, even though its aggression."

In fact, Dr. Sharp has recently released a new book: "Sharp's Dictionary of Power & Struggle -Language of Civil Resistance & Conflict" published 11-1-11.

The amazon.com link here: http://www.amazon.com/Sharps-Dictionary-Power-Struggle-...

Would seem to me that some real clarification is definitely in order here!!! I don't know if a lawsuit is necessarily the way to go on this? Maybe so, but in any event...surely there must be something that can be done to flesh out this *language*!!!!!

Lastly, for anyone who is interested in Chris Hedges, you may want to watch this recent C-SPAN "In-Depth with Chris Hedges" interview which aired 1-1-12. (Note, it's about 3 hours long...hence, the 'In-Depth' part...)

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ChrisHed

[gratuitous]

47. Depends on the complaint

I haven't read it, and I'm not sure if Hedges has brought a complaint for damages or (more likely) one for a declaratory judgment (that is, a ruling by the court to explain what the language of the law is supposed to mean). Certainly, if the complaint is one for declaratory judgment, asking for a definition of undefined terms would be a good specification to bring.

As I said, there's a chance the suit might survive the government's motion for dismissal/summary judgment (though not a very good one, in my experience). But even if the suit doesn't survive, perhaps (maybe, maybe, maybe, cross your fingers) it will lead to a public discussion of just what the hell we think we're doing, letting Congress write laws that presume our own citizens are enemies of the state, to name just one problem with all this "security" legislation.

[BrendaBrick]

53. "Declaratory Judgment"

Thank you gratuitous for your response and in explaining this term. I'm with you in that even if the suit doesn't survive, Plan B would be that it would at least lead to public discussion (and scrutiny) about this legislation.

I sure would like to think so! And who knows? Maybe the lawyer's guild behind the Occupy Movement (I can't recall their exact name, though Olbermann has a representative on from time to time) might already be on top of this as well, since it seems as Hedges has pointed out in the last paragraph:

"But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can."

I sure as heck do not want to get unduly alarmed here...but it just seems to me that somethin' somethin' just ain't on the square here...

I hope I'm wrong.

[sabrina 1]

70. Could a class action suit be filed by the American People, who I would think do have standing

regarding this ruling. Hedges is a citizen yes, but if a massive number of citizens sued Congress and the President wouldn't that be more difficult to dismiss?

[msanthrope]

57. The court will bounce it on standing. nt

[MFrohike]

34. Thank you

It's so nice to see someone who actually understands the situation. Again, thank you.

[treestar]

42. Standing will be the issue

But if the law is applied to someone they would have standing. The Court would then hear the lawsuit.

[sabrina 1]

71. He's a citizen, that's all the standing he needs if he can show how this law applies to him.

Otoh, if it is dismissed, then maybe a million citizens or more can file a class action against Congress and the President. I would think citizens of this country have some standing when their government declares all of them to be terror suspects and then passes a law that endangers their freedoms.

[BrendaBrick]

74. The ACLU has this:

"He signed it. We’ll fight it.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

The dangerous new law can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.

Sign the ACLU's pledge to fight worldwide indefinite detention for as long as it takes.

I’m outraged that the statute President Obama signed into law authorizes worldwide military detention without charge or trial. I pledge to stand with the ACLU in seeking the reversal of indefinite military detention authority for as long as it takes.

And I will support the ACLU as it actively opposes this new law in court, in Congress, and internationally.

Signed,"
[your name]

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?s_subsrc=120103_NDAA_mar&pagename=120103_NDAAGOLAsk&JServSessionIdr004=or43twxel2.app220a

[treestar]

91. Not true, if you go into court - the issue will come up

And be decided on the case law - the court's do not give advisory opinions. There has to be a specific case in controversy. Someone suffering the application of the law.

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

[gratuitous]

108. Prolly just another publicity stunt

You know how some folks are; showing off by getting arrested and embarrassing people who wish they had the courage of the convictions they claim to have. Or so we'll soon be told.

One of the worst on-line fights I ever got in was when I quoted a passage from Hedges' book "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning." Hoo boy!

[Scurrilous]

38. Kick

[Number23]

49. I know. These threads are always a rich and satisfying source of unintentional DUzys

[Scurrilous]

54. LOL

[msanthrope]

43. Well, having read the complaint, I'm inclined to think Chris Hedges needed a publicity stunt.

When the court tosses it for lack of standing, and it will, I hope the government asks for costs.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Funny stuff since the Senate passed NDAA in a veto-proof vote of 86-14.

Lack of standing is the least of his problems. LOL. Orly Taitz has pioneered the way to paying off the national debt with sanctions levied against frivolous lawsuits.

[Better Believe It]

50. Just noticed your posting of this article.

[mojowork_n]

58. Thanks for posting this article. K & R n/t

[bertman]

60. Whether the suit has 'standing' or not, this deserves the attention

the suit is giving it.

REC.

[markhalfmoon]

62. Provisions in NDAA Purposely Set Up To Fail

This lawsuit by Chris Hedges is doing exactly what I believe Obama wanted it to do. Challenge the law's legality in the courts. I believe he set it up to lose in court.

People who are just determined to dislike, mistrust and criticize every single thing President Obama does, of course will assume the worse. That he has some nefarious plot to sell them out to the evil forces of the world, etc.

I believe his back was up against the wall with this. Congress was going to pass it, with or without him. He agreed to sign it in return for planting legal bombs in it that I feel certain will cause it to be struck down in court.

The House of Representatives voted to pass the NDAA 2012 with 283 (65%) voting yes and 136 (31%) voting no. 14 (3%) didn't vote.

The Senate voted to pass it with 86 (86%) voting yes and 13 (13%) voting no. 1 (1%) Senator did not vote.

I am just guessing that the 8 Republicans - including Michele Bachmann - that didn't vote the last time would have joined their colleagues in the House to make up the two thirds majority needed to hand President Obama an embarrassing defeat with an override of his veto in this election year. There's no question that there was more than the required number to override a veto in the Senate. It would have been a futile act of symbolism to veto it.

The veto of this bill, which primarily funds the entire Armed Forces, would cause a delay, during which troops in Afghanistan would not be paid, jets would be grounded for lack of fuel, the Pentagon couldn't pay its heating bill and thousands of shipbuilders and other workers employed by contractors with the military would be laid off. He doesn't have line item veto power so he couldn't just veto the part he didn't like.

President Obama would have begun his reelection year with Republicans blaming him for "not paying our brave combat soldiers," killing jobs, and being weak on defense. He knew he was going to catch hell for this decision, but he made a difficult choice. That's why he made the signing statement. What other reason would he do that? The wording of it was part of the legal sabotage he placed in it to help assure that the courts would overturn it.

All the lefties who think he is just weak, immoral or corrupt are blinded by their one dimensional thinking. Why is it so hard to believe that this man is smarter than you?

[dougolat]

109. I cherish that thought, thank you........nt

[1stlady]

64. He can join

the rest of the racist wackjobs, Orly Titz, Jerom Corsi, James Okafee etc! Remember, Obama is a Kenyan, terrorist, socialist with no birth certificate.

[Ichingcarpenter]

66. So Chris Hedges is now racist? Your post makes no sense

It shows more about you than what the discussion in this thread is about.

Where oh where can you find any statement by Chris
that he is a birther?

You really shouldn't post total crap.

[sabrina 1]

72. You don't know Chris Hedges obviously. Before making any more statements like this, which is

actually hilarious and maybe you WERE trying to be funny, I think you better learn something about this man. He is a true American patriot who has earned the widespread respect he has from all over the world.

It is a very sad thing the someone like him has found it necessary to do this. Even sadder that Democrats who swore oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, could have signed such a dangerous piece of legislation and sadder still, that anyone would try to defend it.

[1stlady]

73. Wow

You remind me of those paranoid rabid teabaggers, their taking away our rights, and guns, fema camps, the constitution blah blah blah!!! The far left is turning into what they hate, teabaggers and its sad to see these folks fall by the way side. Why didn’t he sue the veto-proof majorities in congress that actually passed this bill? It was rumored on another website that I frequent that Chris Hedges is birther, so don't shoot the messenger.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

80. Bullshit.

Let's see a link to that.

[Ichingcarpenter]

84. Can't give a link because she/he's cleaning her computer

as instructed from that web site she frequents.

[lunatica]

81. You base your beliefs on rumors?

It's also rumored that President Obama is a Kenyan Socialist Muslim who's real intent is to destroy this glorious country.

Just saying...

[EFerrari]

85. LOL

Bingo!

[pecwae]

87. You richly deserve

to me corrected in myriad ways. Basing your beliefs on a website rumors then posting them as some sort of unassailable truth = intentionally uninformed.

[sabrina 1]

96. Well, you can't say people didn't try to help you maintain some iota of credibility.

Here's some more advice, I would delete that embarrassing rant if I were you.
But then I wouldn't have posted it in the first place

[Skidmore]

78. I thought Hedges died a couple of weeks ago.

Why are people talking about him like this case is still active.

[BrendaBrick]

82. That was someone else

with the last name of Hedges (can't remember his first name)

[Ichingcarpenter]

83. Christopher Hitchens vs Chris Hedges

go back and get some coffee
totally two different names, people and philosophies.

[EFerrari]

86. Chris Hedges is alive and well and on Amy's show today talking about this.

There should be a link on her homepage in about an hour, democracynow.org.

[gateley]

88. This is the bottom line:

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

"Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission. "

I'm not sure those in power are consciously trying to implement a totalitarian state. Im not sure THEY haven't bought into this BS, believing -- or convincing themselves -- that it's truly for the good of the people and the safety of our nation.

I'm not absolving them, and I could be way wrong and they could all be behind closed doors rubbing their hands together in glee at how well their dastardly plan is progressing. I don't know which would be worse - not seeing it for what it really is, or intentionally planning to continue to shred us of our rights.

Either way, too much of the populace is accepting these actions too docilely . A few get it, but far too many don't.

EDIT: Corrected "to" to "too".

[Ichingcarpenter]

89. +1

Look what happened to the Patriot Act

It lead to authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.

And only one Democratic Senator voted
against it..... Senator Feingold ...
for that matter the only senator who voted against it.

[gateley]

93. Exactly. There's that "fear" thing again. Sure works well. nt

[EFerrari]

90. If you want confirmation of the cynicism of these tactics

all you need to do is to read Cablegate where it is clearly exposed. Noam Chomsky said the cables reveal contempt for the people and for democracy and from what I've read of them, he's exactly right.

And that was the real offense of Cablegate, drawing back that curtain.

You don't really need to wonder what these people think. You can go read it for yourself.

[gateley]

94. Agree, but I think they view themselves as true patriots, much like those who are for

capital punishment and taking away aid from those in need consider themselves true Christians.

[EFerrari]

95. No. Cablegate shows no such self image.

It shows a bunch of people conniving to get their way, whether it be to stop the Spanish trial for torture for Bush or pushing Monsanto all over or threatening Haitian politicians who want to raise the minimum wage.

Oh, btw, there's a report out of Argentina that says a Monsanto contractor works their fieldhands 14 hours a day, forces them to buy from company stores and illegally holds their visas and passports, aka modern slavery. That's the kind of operation our government is supporting all over the world.

[gateley]

97. Well, I'll stop trying to give them even a modicum of the benefit of the doubt --

I think it's because I can't see myself having that attitude, so it's difficult for me to fathom others being so utterly devoid of empathy.

I read that about Argentina -- and I agree it's being done all over the world

But again, EFerrari, I find myself default thinking "maybe they don't realize just HOW bad the conditions are". I'm almost 58 years old, and you'd think by now I'd be a little more realistic in my belief in people.

[EFerrari]

107. We're not far apart in age, gateley.

Maybe I went that last mile after reading what they said and did. It's not a good thing to realize about so called public servants, that's for sure.

[Major Hogwash]

102. Hahahaha!!!!!

[T S Justly]

104. Perhaps the matter will be settled out of court ...

If all else fails. K&R

[Rex]

105. Adding a link for a duplicate thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002176588