[I readily acknowledge this is very long. Skip it if you want, instead of criticizing it just because of its length. Or skim it, and get a bit more curious. Whatever. It’s here for those that care. If you don’t, that’s your right, too. If you spend time on it and have further comment at that point, no problem either. I’ve been and will continue to be respectful to other reasonable points of view – and there have been some.]
I’m coming down in support of Tec’s original comment on the subject: “New potential for much grief, no matter who becomes (or stays) prez.”
I fully concur that it would cause much grief, and could tear this country apart. So, I asked myself, “Why would they want to do that?” And I realized as the question actually rose to full conscious thought, I’ve had that question about a whole lot of things that already HAVE come to pass. And we’ve discussed many of those here in the overall Forum under various topics. The answer very frequently comes up with some variation on the theme that both “official” political parties are simply two sides of the same coin, bent on delivering this nation to the control of a “global community.” Even those that won’t go quite that far, certainly will admit that both parties are unconcerned about truly being bound to (and by) the Constitution of the United States. It makes for good sound bytes in a press statement or quickie on-air interview, sounds good and patriotic to Ma and Pa Public, but we all know that the Constitution is of (at best) secondary importance when they want to accomplish something, and both parties have voted unconstitutional provisions into law time after time. Watch Russell Means “Americans Are The New Indians” video I posted previously. Yes, it’s long, but the insights are nothing short of mind-bending (not because they’re major stretches in logic, but because he’s hit the nail on the head with his analogy that what was done to the Indians is now what’s been done to Americans – and it’s so simply logical!).
So coming from that perspective, asking WHY McConnell would team up with Lindsey Graham (who reportedly wrote it) Orrin Hatch, and others [DARN! And I really wanted to like Joni Ernst!], one has to sit up and take notice immediately with that cast of three characters. We all know that those three cannot be trusted to uphold whatever it is the Republican Party is supposed to stand for anymore (let alone what it used to). Therefore, I detect a very distinct, even strong smell of something rotten – and it ain’t over in Denmark.
Let’s go another step and actually look at the wording of the Resolution. Forget about the fact that it’s unconstitutional in the first place. I can’t believe I just typed that (“forget about the fact that it’s unconstitutional”), but we’ve lived with undeclared wars since Korea, with tens of thousands of dead Americans, and multiple hundreds of thousands, starting with Korea, of significantly wounded Americans (especially when you include the psychological wounds, including those inflicted on spouses and children of those so wounded). Why are we doing it yet again, with such covert swiftness last Wednesday? That should also be at least a yellow flag, suggesting a deeper look is in order. The fact that it isn’t making headlines is a function of the media propaganda arm of the government that slipped this in, like the Lautenberg Amendment (and so many others), when nobody was looking, combined with the fact that we are the frog in the pot, and we aren’t noticing the gradual increases in temperature that now have us near the point of being boiled to death.
So take a look at the following. Without digging into the legal, weedy details of all of the laws, for which I’m certainly not qualified as expert or even competent, it still becomes clear that the intent of this “Authorization” most definitely includes “Use of Military Force” (the very title of the “Authorization”) within the confines of CONUS (continental United States). It also sets aside certain other restrictions by its very wording in the 2nd of three “Whereas” statements below by giving the President “authority … at its maximum, [that] includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Given the use of Executive Orders and the ongoing AUMF’s of the past, plus the absurdly unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. by Congress, it would seem quite clear by easy implication that McConnell, Graham and Hatch fully intend to let the President take the law into his own hands with virtually no restrictions – and they’re giving it to THIS President with a year left in his transformation exercise.
Whereas ISIL poses a direct threat to the United States homeland that is equal to or greater than the threat posed by al Qaeda prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas, although nothing in this joint resolution limits the authorities of the President under article 2 of the Constitution of the United States, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) that ‘‘[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate’’; and
Whereas ISIL, through the use of social media and its online magazine, Dabiq, seeks to radicalize Americans and to inspire attacks within the homeland: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, … [actual authorization details follow]
Read that again slowly, paragraph by paragraph. The first and third “Whereas” sections directly address ISIS within the United States. The second, as previously stated, removes every possible restriction the writers could come up with, without coming out and explicitly stating, “Forget the Constitution! It’s time we took the law into our own hands.” Yet that’s just what this says, effectively.
Posse Comitatus, you might say? What’s that? Who said anything about Posse Comitatus? That argument is null and void anymore – it’s been subtly and even flagrantly violated without so much as a peep on the floor of Congress for decades. It’s another one of those sacred safety valves that has no more legal weight anymore.
And back to the argument that there are too many of “us” and not enough of “them,” I actually agree with that – to a point. But I’ll counter with history, using just one of many instances. Many Germans didn’t want to believe what was really being done within their own and neighboring borders, and even when faced with it, allowed a MINORITY of government forces to subdue any meaningful opposition. It’s called fear and intimidation (note the comment from the Israeli contractor in the Katrina response in one of the videos below). Of course we would have a resistance movement. But I expect that a large (very large) percentage of “gun owners” will not step forward and openly resist, as long as TPTB (The Powers That Be) leave THEM alone. Even if a call-in of all privately held weapons was made, many would not turn them in, but would also not then actually use them against the tyranny imposed to implement that ban. In short, while the TPTB would not “win” in an outright sense, those little communities (even counties) where no fight ever took place would still be “wins” because there was no fight. We might be in chaos as a population within the geographical boundaries of what is called the US on a map, but perhaps that’s exactly the point. It’s really only an extension of the Cloward Piven strategy, and exactly what Marx called for not once, but twice in his three quarters of one page final chapter – destruction of the social and political order by any means necessary. Read it – it’s very explicit.
Paranoid? Sure. It could be. But history is on the side of saying it’s not paranoid, and is instead based in documented fact, time after time, brick by brick – the dismantling of the constitutional republic called the United States of America. Again – watch Russell Means’ video. It’s not delivered by a person you’d ever expect to hear it from, in a manner you’d ever expect to hear it in, or in such depth that you’ve likely ever heard it. Days after finding it, I am still deeply moved by the comprehension and depth displayed by Russell Means in that video. IF it’s truly comprehended by Americans, it could be a game changer. But it won’t be. We will just continue to be herded off to yet another reservation, with further freedoms taken away from us. The Indians have been the incubator for what has now been delivered upon the American People. If you haven’t watched that video, you can’t understand what this paragraph even means – let alone appreciate the depth of what Means was saying.
Thanks, Tec. The rest of you aren’t wrong, you’re just not extending the situation out to its end conclusion. They wouldn’t be putting this into effect unless they intended to have to use it. And if they do, all hell will break loose in this country. And THAT will be the point – it won’t be about simply subduing all the gun owners – they can’t. Just think about the added chaos within the military if implemented – on top of the military vs. civilian conflicts (remember Katrina?).
I doubt that more than maybe two people, maybe three, will bother to watch these short videos. So be it. They’re here anyway, and in an order that is intended (i.e. not just random for “entertainment” or emotional effect).
Ask yourself how FedGov was able to almost instantly mobilize these groups, and physically get actual personnel on the ground long before FEMA ever showed up (and remember: this was George W. and Darth Cheney, not Barry H.). Clearly, there are all sorts of contingency plans already on the books (that are effectively really off the books as far as true federal law is concerned, and therefore out of sight of We the People). Blackwater? Israeli contractors? Mexican forces? Say what?!? They’ve got all sorts of things on the shelves, in the background so it can be implemented on a moment’s notice, and this “Authorization” that entirely circumvents the Constitution further allows any/all of it to be put into effect.
WILL it be misused? Who knows. The point is, that US law used to be about putting individual and state protections into place, above all else, and those have gone by the wayside. It’s Russian roulette, at very best. Why do we fight further gun laws? Because we understand the concept of erosion. And this AUMF is significantly greater erosion. Why can’t we see the danger, and why is there no significant outcry (even among some here)?
Oh – and about the chaos that would be added by troops that refused to fight American citizens, it’s not theoretical. It’s happened – during Katrina. In case you’ve never seen this: