Alternative media commentators who have long warned that the “land of the free” is descending towards a militarized police state are accustomed to having their voices ignored or discounted. Yet reeling from the recent shock scenes of police brutality during multiple Occupy shakedowns, the news that Obama can order US citizens to be killed by drones without trial, the sight of the first of domestic unmanned spy drones and in light of this undeniably authoritarian bill, concerned Americans from all over the country are questioning where this is heading.
The NDAA was passed with overwhelming support from 93 percent of lawmakers and unless vetoed by the President, the legislation would declare America a “battlefield“. Terror suspects could be arrested, detained indefinitely, tortured and interrogated in military prisons— without charge or trial. And the use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” that are currently outlawed could be reapproved
Across the world the US preaches a message of morality, positions itself as the beacon of human rights and demands that foreign Governments listen to their people. Closer to home major efforts are being made to erode what is left of the US Constitition and Bill of Rights, safeguards that were established by the founding fathers to ensure that their country could never fall to the hands of those who would seek dictatorial type control.
The senate backing of the NDAA is the latest in a long string of examples which show just how far America has fallen. For me the crux of this legislation appears to depend entirely upon what the definition of a terrorist actually is. For now we are told that it’s someone who is affiliated to Al-Qaeda or a similar organisation, but can and will this label be subject to change further down the line?
As we have discussed on this website previously, of late there appears to have been a deliberate shift away from the image of the dark skinned bearded terrorist towards a scenario in which anyone is a potential suspect. Until recently the stereotypical Al Qaeda terrorist was enough to spark the endless war on terror in far away lands but now, in the states at least, it seems that anyone of any creed or colour is a potential suspect which has led to the mechanisms of the police state turning inwards on the whole population. This can be witnessed in the more draconian aspects of the Patriot Act, the humiliating requirements of the TSA’s naked body scanners, the raft of very targeted Department of Homeland Security videos, the unconstitutional stop and search checkpoints that are being set up across the country etc.
Since the horrifying attacks on the Twin Towers back in 2001 I have been alarmed to see just how quickly this shift has occurred. It seems that the Americans, and the populations of many countries around the world, have been happy to surrender important basic liberties in the face of the omnipresent Al-Qaeda threat. This is despite the many unanswered questions of entrapment or third party involvement that have arisen in the alternative media following terrorist attacks on US soil, questions which are merely shrugged off for their incredulity or ignored, but never cleared up.
Of course genuine terrorists should be arrested, charged, tried by a jury of their contemporaries and punished for heir heinous crimes but if we start allowing our governments to hold terror suspects indefinitely or even kill them without charge then we are setting an extremely dangerous precedent. The language of this bill explicitly affirms for the future what the president is already doing now — detaining alleged terrorists with no charges.
We must not forgo our right to express points of view that are out of sorts with the official narrative, no matter how unfathomable they may seem to the majority of the public or how difficult or unsettling the answers may be. If we allow such draconian legislation to pass in countries like the US or UK without raising the alarm then how long before we reach a stage in which we can kiss this privilege goodbye? Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that in future a good concerned citizen, who speaks out in the belief that its Government may not be acting in its best interests, may run the risk of being labelled as a terrorist?
Those who believe that a ‘New World Order’ is on the horizon would suggest that the US Government has been infiltrated by globalists who have hijacked the reins of power. Flexing its military might and global dominance to take control of any countries that they see as a threat to their desired one world government system. Whether or not you think that this notion is pure fantasy, such a dramatic legislative leap by the US Senate and the ramping up of police state methodologies across the country must lead you to question where this is going? Is this purely about the protection of American citizens?
If you believe it’s the latter then please consider this question. If the primary terror threat which has prompted authoritarian law such as the NDAA originates with globally connected organisations like Al-Qaeda then what were the US and allies doing heavily arming and supporting Al-Qaeda rebels against the Libya regime?
If it is so important that we defend ourselves from the bogeyman to the extent of abandoning the normal rules of trial and jury then is this not surely an incredible state of affairs?
I’ll leave you with a Youtube presentation I discovered over the weekend. It outlines developments in this area across the US in recent years and charts the rise of unconstitutional police and military powers. These powers, many claim, are being introduced to counter to the mass civil unrest to follow if and when the dollar finally succumbs to the immense pressure it is under.
Land of the Free, Home of the Emerging Police State?
The senate backing of the draconian National Defence Authorisation Act represents an unsettling shift in US policy, the clearest sign yet that civil liberties protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are under heavy siege.
Alternative media commentators who have long warned that the “land of the free” is descending towards a militarized police state are accustomed to having their voices ignored or discounted. Yet reeling from the recent shock scenes of police brutality during multiple Occupy shakedowns, the news that Obama can order US citizens to be killed by drones without trial, the sight of the first of domestic unmanned spy drones and in light of this undeniably authoritarian bill, concerned Americans from all over the country are questioning where this is heading.
The NDAA was passed with overwhelming support from 93 percent of lawmakers and unless vetoed by the President, the legislation would declare America a “battlefield“. Terror suspects could be arrested, detained indefinitely, tortured and interrogated in military prisons— without charge or trial. And the use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” that are currently outlawed could be reapproved
Meanwhile, during the Occupy protests we have witnessed horrifying scenes of police brutality, peaceful demonstrators and pensioners pepper sprayed, flash grenade attacks seriously injuring war veterans and an attempt to stamp out the rising swell of indignation for the inequality in society today.
Across the world the US preaches a message of morality, positions itself as the beacon of human rights and demands that foreign Governments listen to their people. Closer to home major efforts are being made to erode what is left of the US Constitition and Bill of Rights, safeguards that were established by the founding fathers to ensure that their country could never fall to the hands of those who would seek dictatorial type control.
The senate backing of the NDAA is the latest in a long string of examples which show just how far America has fallen. For me the crux of this legislation appears to depend entirely upon what the definition of a terrorist actually is. For now we are told that it’s someone who is affiliated to Al-Qaeda or a similar organisation, but can and will this label be subject to change further down the line?
As we have discussed on this website previously, of late there appears to have been a deliberate shift away from the image of the dark skinned bearded terrorist towards a scenario in which anyone is a potential suspect. Until recently the stereotypical Al Qaeda terrorist was enough to spark the endless war on terror in far away lands but now, in the states at least, it seems that anyone of any creed or colour is a potential suspect which has led to the mechanisms of the police state turning inwards on the whole population. This can be witnessed in the more draconian aspects of the Patriot Act, the humiliating requirements of the TSA’s naked body scanners, the raft of very targeted Department of Homeland Security videos, the unconstitutional stop and search checkpoints that are being set up across the country etc.
Since the horrifying attacks on the Twin Towers back in 2001 I have been alarmed to see just how quickly this shift has occurred. It seems that the Americans, and the populations of many countries around the world, have been happy to surrender important basic liberties in the face of the omnipresent Al-Qaeda threat. This is despite the many unanswered questions of entrapment or third party involvement that have arisen in the alternative media following terrorist attacks on US soil, questions which are merely shrugged off for their incredulity or ignored, but never cleared up.
Of course genuine terrorists should be arrested, charged, tried by a jury of their contemporaries and punished for heir heinous crimes but if we start allowing our governments to hold terror suspects indefinitely or even kill them without charge then we are setting an extremely dangerous precedent. The language of this bill explicitly affirms for the future what the president is already doing now — detaining alleged terrorists with no charges.
We must not forgo our right to express points of view that are out of sorts with the official narrative, no matter how unfathomable they may seem to the majority of the public or how difficult or unsettling the answers may be. If we allow such draconian legislation to pass in countries like the US or UK without raising the alarm then how long before we reach a stage in which we can kiss this privilege goodbye? Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that in future a good concerned citizen, who speaks out in the belief that its Government may not be acting in its best interests, may run the risk of being labelled as a terrorist?
In the US the Occupy protesters have been treated like criminals, enemies of the state, while closer to home, in the UK I was dismayed to learn that earlier this month the City of London Police had come under fire after issuing a letter warning local business and banks of potential terrorist threats that include Occupy London demonstrators! For me this reflects an emerging mindset, one of intolerance towards political protest which is only likely to grow as we head towards the bleak, dark days that would follow a euro or dollar collapse, both of which are still quite possible in my opinion.
Those who believe that a ‘New World Order’ is on the horizon would suggest that the US Government has been infiltrated by globalists who have hijacked the reins of power. Flexing its military might and global dominance to take control of any countries that they see as a threat to their desired one world government system. Whether or not you think that this notion is pure fantasy, such a dramatic legislative leap by the US Senate and the ramping up of police state methodologies across the country must lead you to question where this is going? Is this purely about the protection of American citizens?
If you believe it’s the latter then please consider this question. If the primary terror threat which has prompted authoritarian law such as the NDAA originates with globally connected organisations like Al-Qaeda then what were the US and allies doing heavily arming and supporting Al-Qaeda rebels against the Libya regime?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/859469-al-qaeda-may-have-joined-libyan-battle-claims-nato-chief
If it is so important that we defend ourselves from the bogeyman to the extent of abandoning the normal rules of trial and jury then is this not surely an incredible state of affairs?
I’ll leave you with a Youtube presentation I discovered over the weekend. It outlines developments in this area across the US in recent years and charts the rise of unconstitutional police and military powers. These powers, many claim, are being introduced to counter to the mass civil unrest to follow if and when the dollar finally succumbs to the immense pressure it is under.
from → Big Brother, Blogicomments, Blogivids, Dictatorship, New World Order, society, Terrorism