As I continue to watch CLEO stooges mimic my essays, another point has been validated; that law enforcement can effectively "criminalize" any sort of activity they please as long as maintain control over the environment (as well as the vehicles and devices necessary to support CLEO storylines). In a previous essay I pointed out that it appeared that nothing I could possibly do, waiting for a bus, sitting in a park, having a cup of coffee, taking a piss, or writing these essays, was exempt from some sort of police response or report, subject to "investigation" by cops, even though the premises were always bogus. This authority to "investigate" and accuse is an insidious thing, because it has been obvious for years that the power not to prosecute was the source of power for the PMAPS as it pertains to their own, other prosecutors, public officials and law enforcement personnel. The power to accuse is a source of power for these demigods because it provides a weapon and the shield for those that wield it. Therefore, they are accountable to no one while they possess this power, this authority, certainly not the other Prosecutors Mutual Admiration and Protective Society members.
This is why the Founders thought it was so important to provide for a free press, and the First Amendment was supposed to guarantee that this provision was never abridged by Congress. There were many reasons for this, but a cursory glance at American history shows that government has never been prone to policing itself, nor is it capable of doing so effectively. Government officials, especially those in law enforcement, are continually finding ways to preclude public scrutiny of their activity, (some of the evidence can be found below in the first essay inre Brown Act violations). The Patriot Act effectively precluding any scrutiny over law enforcement and it didn't take long before they proved the "Trust me, I'm a cop" premise was ridiculously misplaced.
As soon as the first of these essays was posted, malicious attacks on the account and the URL began. A quick check of the IP revealed that the ISP was Global Crossing. Another reference check reminded me that Global Crossing was the same outfit that had paid George H.W. Bush in stock for a speaking engagement, which he converted into a $3.5 million cash redemption. Now there was nothing illegal about it. If someone were to pay me in stock in their publishing company for the rights to my book, for instance, I would consider the offer based on an assessment of the company's potential and future earnings. The former President was no longer in office when he was compensated for the speech, nor was the $50,000 out of line for speakers of his status. But at the same time, the function of journalists in a free society has always been to report and comment on these things, to allow the reader to make their own determinations, to provide the substance for dialog, and to frame the debates that are necessary to maintain a healthy, open democracy.
At the point just after the first version of the Patriot Act was passed, all of a sudden we had "secret police" that were investigating anyone they decided was a "suspect" of espionage or treason. Consider for a moment what you would do if you found yourself at a baseball stadium filled with 46,000 fans, and the person sitting next to you said, "You know, I think everyone in this stadium is a spy, plotting to destroy the United States!" That's right. You'd go speak with security and ask the usher to allow you to move to another seat.
But that's exactly what the "Secret Police" did in 2006, and every year since 2001, when they arbitrarily decided that tens of thousands of Americans were "suspects" and used that suspicion to wield "Secret Police" authority and investigative powers against them, all without the participation of any judicial officials, without any scrutiny whatsoever of their tactics, their motives or the results. In fact, what we found out later was that FBI was indeed illegally serving exigent letters, thousands of phony instruments that were used to confiscate property and records under the auspices of Patriot Act powers despite lacking the authority to do so when they served those letters. And every year since the Patriot Act was passed, similar violations have occurred, but how is anyone going to know when the fundamental premise of these "investigations" are to maintain secrecy? The Senate has no means of holding anyone accountable for violations in a meaningful sense, and in fact have a shared incentive to overlook abuses. The Senate doesn't even have the power to withhold funds from DHS for violations, so the term "oversight" is almost meaningless.
But this is the law, and what I have pointed out, along with many legal scholars and federal judges, is that you can't have a Constitution of a Bill of Rights and the Patriot Act at the same time. The are contradictory, in direct opposition to each other, because the Founders made no provision for "Secret Police" or any secretive investigations conducted against American citizens without some sort of participation and oversight by the judicial branch. In fact, they tried to make sure the exact opposite was beyond abridgement. "Congress shall make no law . . . " seems to be fairly conclusive as far as intent, yet the Patriot Act undermines the premise, obviates it in fact, to the point where the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is rendered meaningless as well.
The reason I've pointed this out is because the "Preachers" that stood before the general population and told them they had to sacrifice their civil rights for security, have been eagerly supported by the "Punks" who in my experience are the "Goons and Cowards" who benefit from this increased power. Law enforcement and military slime not subject to prosecution or even accountability. As I've observed the reckless, stupid, destructive behavior of America's Heroes, especially the Hags that have earned my contempt, I've tried to refine their behavior and conduct to a single pseudonym, and after watching how they function in a civilian environment, there is no better description. Overgrown punks with nothing resembling a moral compass or common decency in their genes. And so this defect is passed along to their progeny, and when I see little twits like the cowardly, worm-like wanna-be cop, lurking in a restroom for harassment duty, I'm often reminded that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree; that "military brats" grow up to be "military slime" because their is nothing in the civilian realm that they value above their allegiance to their own ilk, their own kind.
When the Constitution was forged, there was a discussion about whether a standing army was necessary, whether a reserve force, an organized militia, wouldn't be adequate to protect and defend the nation. Up until 1945, when the U.S. proved that tactical nuclear capability ended a lot of disputes before they began, there was reason to support the notion of a standing army, a military capable of responding to threats to the "Homeland" as it were. This is no longer the case, and if one looks with an objective eye at the the results and the costs associated with maintaining 5 million active personnel, the 23 million in-actives that require care and feeding, and the residual costs incurred by their ineptitude, misconduct and failures, perhaps it's time to revisit that debate.
© humble journalist
To go to the next essay, follow this link: http://gop4sale.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment