Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Address to the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, November 23, 2010
In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly North had been handling plans for an emergency response to a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution at the president’s determination.
As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up:
[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.[1]
Brooks was responding to a story by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami Herald. about Oliver North’s involvement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in planning for “Continuity of Government” (COG). According to Chardy, the plans envisaged “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.”[2]
In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution.
As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up:
[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.[1]
But we have never heard if there was or was not an executive session, or if the rest of Congress was ever aware of the matter. According to James Bamford, “The existence of the secret government was so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed.”[2] (Key individuals in Congress were almost certainly aware.)
This is NOT a new paper; it was penned in 2003 and uploaded recently (to the best I can tell). However I was pleased with the analysis (besides not questioning 9/11 itself) and the emphasis for maintaing civil liberties through the courts in the least. 2003 was a much harder year to be “against the grain” than 2010 as it was only a year or so after the 9/11 attacks. I doubt the author of the paper would is pleased at the current state of affairs.
After September lIth. governments around the world have taken swift action to address what is now perceived as a world-wide threat of terrorism. The measures adopted are powerful and far-reaching. They also have the very real potential seriously to restrict civil rights and freedoms: the very rights and freedoms in the name of which the new anti-terrorism initiatives have been taken. While Courts have the power to ensure that these initiatives do not improperly infringe on individual rights and liberties. in recent judicial pronouncements. it appears that several high courts – specifically including the Supreme Court of Canada – are suggesting more, not less, judicial deference to government initiatives taken at this troubled time.
Back in 2005-06, I wrote a book, The Case for Impeachment, in which I made the argument that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as other key figures in the Bush/Cheney administration–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales–should be impeached for war crimes, as well as crimes against the Constitution of the United States.
These days, when I mention the book’s title, people sometimes ask, half in jest, whether I’m referring to the current president, Barack Obama.
Sadly, it is time to say, just 14 months into the current term of this new president, that yes, this president, and some of his subordinates, are also guilty of impeachable crimes–including many of the same ones committed by Bush and Cheney.
Let’s start with the war in Afghanistan, which Obama has taken full ownership of with an escalation that will bring the number of US troops in that country (not counting mercenaries hired by the Pentagon and CIA) to 100,000 by this August.
In a 45-page opinion, Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain, a now-defunct Islamic charity in Oregon, and of two lawyers representing it in 2004. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been “subjected to unlawful surveillance,” the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.
The ruling delivered a blow to the Bush administration’s claims that its surveillance program, which Mr. Bush secretly authorized shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was lawful. Under the program, the National Security Agency monitored Americans’ international e-mail messages and phone calls without court approval, even though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, required warrants.
The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and had made no decision about whether to appeal.
Twelve-year-old war protester Frankie Hughes was arrested late Wednesday for trespassing after she allegedly refused to leave U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin’s Des Moines office.
On Thursday morning, the girl’s mother – who was standing outside Harkin’s office when Frankie was taken into custody – was ticketed for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
“The American Bar Association believes that Article III courts are the preferred forum for trying detainees accused of criminal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the United States.”
Must a candidate for public office embrace the government’s official version of 9-11?
The recent scuffle between Glenn Beck and Debra Medina regarding her personal views of 9-11, while exposing Beck as a shill, also raises another question. What is acceptable for a candidate for public office to believe regarding 9-11? Are all candidates required to agree with the 9-11 Commission Report? Is it now a litmus test for all those seeking office? That would seem to be asking a lot, especially considering what the Commissioners themselves have said about the 9-11 Commisssion:
In a New York Times article dated 1-2-08, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of ther 911 Commission, said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation“.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
A reader asked whether the U.S. is still in an official state of emergency, and if so, what that means. The answer is yes, we are still in a state of emergency.
This article is more than a couple of years old. It was sent to me via my father, who see’s it as a good article because it is short and to the point. In the end, the article is right on in many ways. It does forget about a few other responsible people, namely us. The three braches of government are supposed to check and balance each other, but when this fails, the fourth brach must step in: That is us .We “elect” the officials, we pay the taxes, and we buy the stocks. This is a very official support leg for the policies that we don’t agree with. As always, the biggest changes happen within ourselves. Thanks Dad. Brian
(Date of publication unknown)– — - Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
Robert Gibbs was on MSNBC recently and spoke about alleged 9/11 hijacker Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. No matter where the trial is held, “he is likely to be executed” Gibbs said. Unfortunately, legal concepts like ”innocent until proven guilty” are a far cry from even our highest officials minds.
Gibbs was echoing comments from many on both sides of the political aisle. From Glenn Beck to Bill O’Reilly, President Obama and President Bush, everyone wants to “rid the world of the evil-doers’.” Kalid Sheikh Mohammed was allegedly arrested in Pakistan on March 1st, 2003.
The 2005 Bradbury memo revealed the waterboarding routine for KSM in 2003; he was waterboarded 183 times in one month alone. Whatever happened in the four years between his alleged arrest in Pakistan and alleged confession at Guantanamo, the information he did or did not provide has not:
Officials, journalists, activists say 9/11 truth activists pose a violent threat; call for secret government disruption of our work – or worse
Note: This article addresses issues that arguably lie outside AE911Truth’s mission. We consider such a departure to be justified in this case, because the paper by Sunstein and Vermeule specifically mentioned as the targets of its advocated “infiltration,” the 16% of Americans who responded to a Scripps-Howard Poll in 2006 that it was either very likely or somewhat likely that “the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two
buildings” (Conspiracy Theories, p. 2).
.You know you’re getting somewhere on an issue of paramount public importance when your opponents stop making fun of you and start describing you as a threat to the established order, and supporting interference with or the elimination of your First Amendment rights, and even accuse you of being a terrorist.
Background 1: Weitzman’s Defamation
One of the first shots in the threat campaign was fired just over two years ago by Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (to which we responded).
Testifying in November 2007 before a House subcommittee of the Homeland Security committee, Weitzman portrayed AE911Truth in what could be construed as part of a jihadist campaign in support of “violent radicalization,” ” homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence.” The words Weitzman intoned as our homepage appeared in his presentation – “Soon, soon, soon, the attack on Manhattan” – have never appeared on our website. Alas, anyone testifying before Congress has absolute immunity against being sued for defamation. All of this is a sour irony, given Weitzman’s work as an “anti-defamation” activist.
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.
Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.
Posted by Brian 
Testifying in November 2007 before a House subcommittee of the Homeland Security committee, 
