Stuart, thanks for this. Glenn Greenwald has a very good piece about this, as well: <a href="http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/">http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/</a>.<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Stuart Levy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stuartnlevy@gmail.com">stuartnlevy@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thought this was a good piece from the United for Peace and Justice
list - as well as the David Swanson column that it responds to.<br>
<br>
We could well adopt the South African term, "securocrats", for
operatives in our own merging military/nationalsecurity/local police
agglomeration.<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>[ufpj-activist] Fwd: [Ufpj-leg-action] David Swanson Set
Your Doomsday Clock to 11:51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:23:02 -0800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Christopher Lowe <a href="mailto:clowe@igc.org" target="_blank"><clowe@igc.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>UFPJ-activist activist
<a href="mailto:ufpj-activist@lists.mayfirst.org" target="_blank"><ufpj-activist@lists.mayfirst.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
Thanks to David Swanson for the brilliant clarity of this piece.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding this: "The National Defense Authorization Act is not
a leap from democracy to tyranny, but it is another major step on
a steady and accelerating decade-long march toward a police
state," allow me to offer a mite of perspective from an atypical
angle: the history of South Africa. It has been resonating in my
mind in recent years and weeks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The steps were different. In some ways they were smaller,
through many increments of expanded time of detention without
trial and restriction of detainee ability to seek legal redress
and judicial ability to intervene. The leap to indefinite
detention without legal recourse has occurred with breathless
haste in our case, by old South African standards. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Conversely, in some ways in South Africa the application was
much broader, as the detention provisions applied across civil
society to all South African citizens and residents (including
those whose citizenship "grand apartheid" sought to end) and were
carried out by the police, including the secret political police.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By old South African standards, the restriction of detention
without trial to military agencies under the law of war and the
quibbling over issues like<i> posse comitatus</i> and distinctions
between executive military jurisdiction vs. prosecutorial powers
in civilian jurisdictions, while fastidious in a way that betrays
their pantomime character and bad conscience, nonetheless defines
a narrowness of scope, along with the frontiers of potential
expansion as principle erodes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, in the period between the first detention without
trial laws around 1960 and the full blown police state "states of
emergency" in the 1980s, South Africa also saw an erosion and
ultimately collapse of the military vs. secret police vs. civilian
police distinction. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>South African opposition intellectuals developed a new word,
"securocrats," to describe those acting within the increasingly
merged structures. In the U.S. we have been undergoing a similar
process since September 2001, and the undermining of <i>posse
comitatus</i> under the "global battlefield" doctrine is a
further step in that process. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Even before those developments, the old South African state was
only unevenly and ambiguously liberal, in rule-of-law terms, but
there was a realm of civil liberties and a legal tradition behind
it that was progressively strangled from about 1960 to 1989.
After a certain point defense in the legal system became almost
purely tactical, as there was nothing left of principle to defend,
but the tactical fights still mattered. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We start from a somewhat stronger place, especially insofar as
old South Africa was a parliamentary republic lacking an
independent judiciary and having no constitutionally established
rights and liberties. It seems to me that we need to continue
asserting that these purported laws are in fact illegal, even
while the political meaning of such assertion may be shifting
toward highlighting the growing illegitimacy of the state, and
even if the courts for a time abdicate their duties and rule
erroneously or refuse to rule. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All this by way of offering one relatively historical precedent
for David's "march toward a police state" analysis. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chris L</div>
<div>Portland, OR</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>Begin forwarded message:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica;color:#000000" color="#000000" face="Helvetica" size="4"><b>From: </b></font><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica" face="Helvetica" size="4"><a href="mailto:Hiscze@aol.com" target="_blank">Hiscze@aol.com</a></font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica;color:#000000" color="#000000" face="Helvetica" size="4"><b>Date: </b></font><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica" face="Helvetica" size="4">December
16, 2011 10:16:26 AM PST</font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica;color:#000000" color="#000000" face="Helvetica" size="4"><b>To: </b></font><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica" face="Helvetica" size="4"><a href="mailto:ufpj-leg-action@lists.mayfirst.org" target="_blank">ufpj-leg-action@lists.mayfirst.org</a></font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica;color:#000000" color="#000000" face="Helvetica" size="4"><b>Subject: </b></font><font style="font:14.0px Helvetica" face="Helvetica" size="4"><b>[Ufpj-leg-action]
David Swanson Set Your Doomsday Clock to 11:51</b></font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;min-height:14px"><br>
</div>
<font color="#000000" face="Arial">
<div>
<h1>Set Your Doomsday Clock to 11:51 </h1>
By David Swanson<br>
<a title="http://warisacrime.org/content/set-your-doomsday-clock-1151" href="http://warisacrime.org/content/set-your-doomsday-clock-1151" target="_blank">http://warisacrime.org/content/set-your-doomsday-clock-1151</a><br>
<div>
<div>
<p>The National Defense Authorization Act is not a
leap from democracy to tyranny, but it is another
major step on a steady and accelerating decade-long
march toward a police state. The doomsday clock of
our republic just got noticeably closer to midnight,
and the fact that almost nobody knows it, simply
moves that fatal minute-hand a bit further still.</p>
<p>I'm not referring to the “doomsday” <a title="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/panetta-doomsday-scenario-may-exaggerate-cuts.html" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/panetta-doomsday-scenario-may-exaggerate-cuts.html" target="_blank">predicted</a>
by Leon Panetta should military spending be scaled
back to the obscenely inflated levels of 2007. I'm
talking about the complete failure to <em>keep</em>
the republic that Benjamin Franklin warned we might
not. Practices that were avoided, outsourced, or
kept secret when Bill Clinton was president were
directly engaged in on such a scale under president
George W. Bush that they became common knowledge.
Under President Obama they are becoming formal law
and acceptable policy.</p>
<p>Obama has <a title="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/vince_warren" href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/vince_warren" target="_blank">claimed the
power</a> to imprison people without a trial since
his earliest months in office. He <a title="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obama-national-archives-s_n_206189.html" target="_blank">spoke</a>
in front of the Constitution in the National
Archives while gutting our founding document in
2009. So why not pick the 220th anniversary of the
Bill of Rights to further codify its elimination?
President Obama <a title="http://warisacrime.org/ongoingtorture" href="http://warisacrime.org/ongoingtorture" target="_blank">has
claimed</a> the power to torture "if needed,"
issued an <a title="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention" href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention" target="_blank">executive
order</a> claiming the power of imprisonment
without trial, exercised that power on a massive
scale at Bagram, and claimed <a title="http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/" href="http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/" target="_blank">and exercised</a>
the power to assassinate U.S. citizens. Obama
routinely kills people with unmanned drones.</p>
<p>As Obama's Justice Department has broken new ground
in the construction of state secrecy and immunity,
the Bush era advancers of imperial presidential
power have gone on book tours bragging about their
misdeeds. One can expect the next step to involve
serious abuse of those who question and resist the
current bipartisan trajectory.</p>
<p>So what does the latest bill do, other than dumping
another $660 billion into wars and war preparation?
Well, <a title="http://warisacrime.org/content/changes-made-won-obamas-approval" href="http://warisacrime.org/content/changes-made-won-obamas-approval" target="_blank">it
says this</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Nothing in this section is intended to limit or
expand the authority of the President or the scope
of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, Congress is giving its stamp of
approval to the unconstitutional outrages already
claimed by the president. But then, why create a new
law at all? Well, because some outrages are more
equal than others, and Congress has chosen to
specify some of those and in fact to expand some of
them. For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate
force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United
States to detain covered persons (as defined in
subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The disposition of a person under the law of war
as described in subsection (a) may include the
following: (1) Detention under the law of war
without trial until the end of the hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Jon Stewart explained when those detained without
trial under the law might be released: “So when the
war on terror ends, and terror surrenders and is no
longer available as a human emotion, you are free to
go.”</p>
<p>An exception for U.S. citizens was kept out of the
bill <a title="http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" href="http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" target="_blank">at President Obama's
request</a>.</p>
<p>So why did Obama threaten to veto the bill
initially and again after it passed the Senate?
Well, one change made by the conference committee
was this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The <strike>Secretary of Defense</strike>
President may<strike>, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence,</strike> waive the requirement of
paragraph (1) if the <strike>Secretary</strike>
President submits to Congress a certification in
writing that such a waiver is in the national
security interests of the United States."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reference here is to military tribunals. The
President – that is, the current one and future ones
– need not hand someone over even to a military
tribunal if . . . well, if he (or she) chooses not
to.</p>
<p>President Obama wanted a bill that limited him in
no way, and he is likely to issue a law-altering
signing-statement that further removes any offensive
limits on absolute tyrannical power. This type of
signing statement is another example of something
done secretly by Bush, exposed, turned into a
temporary scandal, denounced by candidate Obama,
then utilized by President Obama, formally
established by executive order, and now more or less
accepted by everyone as the norm.</p>
<p>That is what will happen with trial-free
imprisonment and assassination as well. And the
presidents who engage in these practices will be
from both major political parties. So readers should
weigh the acceptable crimes and abuses of the good
tyrants on their team against the risk of presidents
from the other team doing the same. Of course, this
team loyalty is the main reason the streets of
Washington are not filled with protesters. The
corporate media believes that outrages agreed to by
both parties are not news. Many Democrats believe
any power a Democratic president wants he should
have, even though all of his successors will have it
too. And many Republicans back whatever comes out of
a Republican House of Representatives.</p>
<p>A large majority of Republicans in the House voted
to eviscerate our Bill of Rights, and the Democrats
split 93 to 93. In the Senate both parties
overwhelmingly voted "Aye."</p>
<p>If ever there was a time to build an independent,
principled movement based in activism rather than
elections and to put a few more minutes back on the
doomsday clock, this is it. While Obama's decision
not to veto this bill has discouraged many, at
RootsAction we've continued <a title="http://rootsaction.org/featured-actions/316-veto-imprisonment-without-charge-or-trial" href="http://rootsaction.org/featured-actions/316-veto-imprisonment-without-charge-or-trial" target="_blank">demanding
a veto</a> because we think the Constitution
should be upheld and improved, not dismantled. If
signed into law, we will demand that this
elimination of our rights be repealed by Congress or
overturned in court, and we will use that campaign
to educate the public about what just happened.</p>
<p>##</p>
<p>David Swanson is a campaigner for <a title="http://rootsaction.org/" href="http://rootsaction.org/" target="_blank">http://rootsaction.org</a>
and the author of "When the World Outlawed War,"
"War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial
Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union."</p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</font>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">_______________________________________________</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">Ufpj-leg-action mailing list</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;min-height:14px"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">Post: <a href="mailto:Ufpj-leg-action@lists.mayfirst.org" target="_blank">Ufpj-leg-action@lists.mayfirst.org</a></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">List info: <a href="https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-action" target="_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-action</a></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;min-height:14px"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">To Unsubscribe</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span>
</span>Send email to:<span> </span><a href="mailto:Ufpj-leg-action-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org" target="_blank">Ufpj-leg-action-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org</a></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span>
</span>Or visit: <a href="https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-leg-action/clowe%40igc.org" target="_blank">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-leg-action/clowe%40igc.org</a></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;min-height:14px"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">You are subscribed as: <a href="mailto:clowe@igc.org" target="_blank">clowe@igc.org</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>