jazzoLOG: Rule By Executive Order    
 Rule By Executive Order24 comments
picture17 Feb 2006 @ 11:55, by Richard Carlson

The wonderful thing about Zen practice is that you get to do it whether you like it or not.

---Zen saying

When we are not sure, we are alive.

---Graham Greene

I lay on the bowsprit, with the water foaming into spume under me, the masts with every sail white in the moonlight towering above me. I became drunk with the beauty and singing rhythm of it, and for a moment lost myself---actually lost my life. I was set free...dissolved in the sea, became white sails and flying spray, became beauty and rhythm and the high dim-starred sky....I belonged within a unity and joy to life itself.

---Eugene O'Neill

I do not want to talk about the hunting weekend. As Joel Achenbach says the incident already has had more coverage than the landing at Normandy. What interests me are the final moments of the Britt Hume interview Wednesday on SweetMother Fox:

Q On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors -- unidentified -- authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's nothing I can talk about, Brit. This is an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviewed, as well, by a special prosecutor. All of it is now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He's a great guy. I've worked with him for a long time, have enormous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

Q Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There is an executive order to that effect.

Q There is.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Have you done it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order --

Q You ever done it unilaterally?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President.
[link]

Fortunately Pete Yost, of the Associated Press, picked up on the comment yesterday...but I hardly notice the nation reeling from this announcement. Here's his account...but stick with me: I've got more questions about this~~~ [link]

Cheney Says He Can Declassify Secrets
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 16, 8:36 AM ET

Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters.

Cheney coupled his statement in a TV interview Wednesday with an endorsement of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his ex-aide. Libby is under indictment on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

"Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence," Cheney told Fox News Channel. "He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case, and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case."

In a recent court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions to a grand jury that superiors had authorized him to spread sensitive information from a National Intelligence Estimate. The administration used the NIE assessment on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction as part of its justification for going to war.

At the time of Libby's contacts with reporters in June and July 2003, the administration, including Cheney, who was among the war's most ardent proponents, faced growing criticism.

No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and Bush supporters were anxious to show that the White House had relied on prewar intelligence projecting a strong threat from such weapons.

Fitzgerald did not specify which superiors Libby may have been referring to when he testified that higher-ups had authorized him to spread sensitive information.

But in the interview, Cheney said an executive order gives him, and President Bush, power to declassify information.

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

Libby is not charged with leaking classified information, and his lawyers said last week that there was no truth to a published report that they had advised the court or prosecutors that Libby will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors.

A legal expert said Cheney's comments could nonetheless foreshadow a Libby defense.

Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said, "If the focus is off the defendant and on to somebody else, generally for the defense that's a good day. If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity and if the truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally different case than one centered around the activities of Libby."

The indictment against Libby says Cheney advised his chief of staff on June 12, 2003, that the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA in the counterproliferation division.

Libby understood that the vice president had learned this information from the CIA, according to the indictment, which says Libby also learned of Wilson's wife's identity from the CIA and the State Department.

On July 14, 2003, the CIA identity of Valerie Plame — the maiden name of Wilson's wife — was published by columnist Robert Novak. Eight days earlier, Wilson had accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. Wilson concluded it was highly doubtful that a purported sale of uranium yellowcake by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990s had ever taken place.

Libby was indicted last October on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of Plame's identity and what he told reporters about it.

A defense that Libby was authorized to leak sensitive data about Iraq would not appear to provide any defense against the charge of making false statements regarding Plame.

But some lawyers pointed out that setting up defenses before a jury involve more than simply constructing legal arguments.

An authorization defense in the CIA leak case would mean that "much of what Libby was trying to do was aid and protect his boss Cheney," Ray suggested. The downside to employing such an approach is that it "almost comes with a defense that I did it."

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

My first question is What Executive Order is that, and who issued it? Yeah, maybe the Executive should be the one to declassify documents in his jurisdiction, but does it sound like America to you if he also declares himself to have the right to do it? Shouldn't that be something the Congress or Supreme Court would do?

Let's say a law exists on the books. The law was written by Congress and signed by the President. What if it says it's illegal to identify a covert CIA operative? Can the Executive or Vice Executive declassify information that thereby reveals such an identity without breaking that law? Can an Executive issue any Order he wants...and expect it to supercede the law of the land? Is that where we are?

I have to confess I dropped out of the only course in Constitutional Law I ever attempted in graduate school. So where can a guy like me find out about Executive Orders...and this one in particular? After 3 hours of sifting through all the questions about Cheney's shooting itself (What were those guys doing on a remote ranch with a couple of women on Valentine's Weekend without their spouses? How drunk were they? Who else has been hit by birdshot at that supposed range, what was it like, and how many layers of clothing did it go through? How close would you have to be to hit just that area of face and shoulder...and to get the shot floating through the bloodstream and into the heart? Is Whittington actually dead and the guy in the hospital an imposter?), I found that "georgia10" at Daily Kos was on top of it. [link]

"The Executive's authority to classify or declassify information does not come from Congressional statute. Rather, Presidents have long held that it is part of the President's inherent authority. Courts have concurred.

"In 1951, President Truman signed Executive Order 10290 (pdf), the President relied on his Constitutional authority as President of the United States to enact a classification scheme. Such language has been included in classification orders since then.

"In Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), the Supreme Court stated in its dicta that the authority to control access to sensitive information is vested in the President of the United States. Accordingly, an argument can be made that the President need not 'ask permission' from the CIA or NSA or anyone when it comes to classifying or declassifying information."

But where does Cheney get off saying he can do it too? What follows at Daily Kos obviously is Bush's whole strategy~~~

"Now, let's examine the current policy in the Bush administration with respect to classified information:

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

"This section deals with classification authority. Does it include declassification as well? If the President and Vice-President have the discretion to unilaterally classify information, would it not follow that they have the discretion to unilaterally declassify it?

"Part 3 of the order deals with declassification. Plame's identity and occupation were classified and should have remained classified. But, Cheney may have an escape route in this section:

3.1(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.

"How do we know Cheney will cling to this provision for dear life if his authority to declassify is indeed challenged? Because this has been his office's defense since Day 1. Notice that the standard is 'public interest in the disclosure of information.' An extremely broad standard which provides more than enough wiggle room for Cheney to claim he authorized the leaking of Plame's identity and name to 'set the record straight' and minimize the damage Wilson was doing to the case for war. Note that this section of the Executive Order does not speak to motive. I'd also note that particular section is not new but was first enacted under President Clinton in Executive Order 12356, signed in 1995.

"Up until this point, it looks like Cheney is in the clear, at least legally speaking. But let's examine another section pertaining to declassification, Sec. 4.1. General Restrictions on Access:

4.1(c) Classified information shall remain under the control of the originating agency or its successor in function. An agency shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency without its authorization. An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control.

"It reads that 'an agency' shall not disclose information without authorization. Does 'an agency' include the Vice-President of the United States? Yep. In the definitional section of the order:

(i) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

"So, if we accept that 'entity' includes individual entities like the Vice-President, it looks like Cheney should have asked permission from the 'originating agency' (the CIA) before authorizing Libby to leak. Also, it may be that Cheney's declassification--even if it was consistent with this order--should have gone through the mandatory declassification review in Section 3.5(a).

"Prior to March 25, 2003, the authority to unilaterally classify and perhaps declassify info was vested solely in the President. However, with Executive Order 13292, President Bush greatly expanded Vice-Presidential power. He changed many sections throughout his original order, each time granting Cheney the authority to exercise the same power as the President. Basically, any time the order stated that the President had authority to do something (which, as explained above, that authority is derived from the Constitution), Bush tacked on the phrase 'and in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President'. Bush essentially then delegated that Constitutional authority granted solely to him as Commander-in-Chief to the Vice-President of the United States.

"As 'A Patriot' points out, the timing of the March 25, 2003 order is incredibly suspicious. [link] Why did the President choose March 2003 to enact such a starking aggrandizemnet of Vice-Presidential power? It was in March, as we all know, that the decision to smear Wilson was made:

Wilson connects Cheney to the events involving his wife through a meeting he said occurred in March 2003. He charged that Cheney's staff -- with at least the 'implicit' involvement of the vice president -- met and decided to investigate his background. The investigation, he said, uncovered his wife's role at the CIA.

"'The office of the vice president, either the vice president himself or more likely his chief of staff, chaired a meeting at which a decision was made to do a "work-up" on me,' Wilson wrote in The Politics of Truth.

"So the decision was made to smear the Wilson by leaking the information about his wife. Such a leak could not originate from the President's office--too dangerous, its members too high-profile, and we know that the dirty deeds have been orchestrated by the vice-president's office in the past. Did the President and the Vice-President conspire then to alter the exective order to give the Vice-President the authority to orchestrate the smear?

"Perhaps that is why Bush was able to say with such a straight face the following:

He added that he did not know of 'anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.'

Because of the changes to his order, it's possible Bush thinks that the information wasn't 'leaked,' but rather was 'declassified' by the newly vested authority by the Vice-President. Libby, as his defense claims, didn't leak 'classified' information. They read over the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and concocted the perfect defense. The act reads in part:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

"Cheney was the one with authorized access. He disclosed that information to one authorized to receive classified information. But at that moment, the information, according to Cheney, was no longer classified, giving Libby the cover to disseminate the info at will. That explains why the Bush administration has embraced a 'fine, go ahead, investigate us' attitude. They believe that, by virtue of Bush's cover-up amendments, that they have all the legal cover they need.

"The defense all along was to set this up as an authorized disclosure. This tactic is not surprising at all. Break the law, then bend the law to cover up your lawlessness.

"Do you recall that when it became clear Rove had leaked the information to reports, there was a flurry of articles about how 'upset' Bush was, that he felt betrayed by Karl? In the New York Daily News (yes, I know) there was a hint that the anger wasn't at the disclosure, but at the fact the Office of the President was tied to the leak:

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

"That's because, as this whole conspiracy illustrates, the plan was to confine the smear to the Office of the Vice-President. That is why the order was amended to give Cheney the power to smear. That is why Libby was the main leaker. When Rove's deviousness tempted him to play along, he screwed up the plan by tainting the Office of the President with the leak.

"The Vice-President's decision to declassify this information may not be judged in the courts, but rather in the court of public opinion. Courts long have been hesitant to question the President's discretion in dealing with classified materials. Does such deference extend to the Vice-President? Even if the legal cover-up here withstands or avoid judicial review, what will the public make of the fact that Vice-President Cheney committed a crime, but President Bush chauffeured the getaway car?"

This is my first reading of anything by georgia10, and I must say I am impressed indeed. But after all this, here's what I want to know:

Let's say the President and Vice President decide that somebody's report is not creditable because the man's wife had something to do, however remote, with his getting the assignment. Let's say they don't believe in cronyism anymore. What's to stop them from calling a press conference and declaring the situation openly? Why can't they order somebody else to check Wilson's work if it's wrong? Why didn't they?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those of you interested in the different perspectives of what went on at that 50,000 acre ranch, here's a pile of links~~~

Molly Ivins wondering how liberal Whittington is [link]
Arianna Huffington about the Armstrong "get-away" and all the deals that have been made there, including Cheney's 30 years of hanging out there [link]
Boston Globe compilation of Cheney's history of secrecy [link]
Howard Dean calls on Cheney to resign [link]
Veteran hunters talk about birdshot [link]
Whittington actually is dead (this is humor) [link]
Hundreds of questions remain after the Fox interview [link]
Bryan Zepp's typically brilliant essay about hunting drunk in Texas [link]
And oh yes, the unbelievable prayer visualization that illustrates this article [link]


[< Back] [jazzoLOG]

Category:  

24 comments

17 Feb 2006 @ 12:34 by jstarrs : The last link is awesome...
...I'm off to do some buddhist protector stuff!  


17 Feb 2006 @ 16:00 by jazzolog : While You're There
how about visualizing a double dorje to cut a swath through the White House when the whole gang is assembled?  


20 Feb 2006 @ 20:54 by vaxen : The Order:
Examine Rex 84 and Operation Garden Plot as well as Operation Cable Splicer. Then ask yourself the question, if you still do things like asking questions instead of ''just obeying orders:'' What up Charlie Brown?

Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:...

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the...

National Security Act of 1947
allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.

1950 Defense Production Act
gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

Act of August 29, 1916
authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act
enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.The USA PATRIOT ACT; ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism’ guts the 1st ,4th, 5th, Amendments for starters. Homeland Security Act gives the death blows that has finished our wonderful Constitution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our wonderful Constitution? Ha! It was suspended a long time ago! It was never ''ours'' to begin with! Welcome to the New World Order. Don't worry, be happy, happy, happy! ;)  



21 Feb 2006 @ 00:22 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : So Vax
this stuff is very interesting.

Could you give us some background? Like where it comes from? And which president signed these orders? And why?

What's your source?

And Vax, why do you think we are such idiots? Why must you always smear our faces into the dirt on the ground when you share some secret knowledge of yours? Is it frustration, the thin skin you may have acquired by being treated by the suit and tie types as a crank, a fringe wierdo who spends his nights concocting elaborate conspiracy theories? The vast lurid dark domain out there of a hostile overbearing unfair world spinning about a mighty axis of power above you? (That sentence was a stretch but I hope I got the idea across?)

Who are you? Where are you? What's your job, if you have one? Okay, I know these questions are personal. But everytime I open this site up and see your comment you're condescendingly shoving something down my throat. Telling me I'm an ignorant fool. So I just happened to wonder who you are. And where you get this stuff from? I mean, it matters!

Frankly, I don't doubt the authoritarian nature of your "executive orders." They are probably true. But what's the context? And how have they been used? A couple are blatantly unconstitutional, I would think. Though you say the Constitution no longer is in effect. You may even be right.

Are you a captive somewhere? Are you in economic chains? Caught against your will in a spiritual straightjacket? Are you a wage slave or a boss? Do you live off your wits? Have you undergone shock treatment? Do you dispense shock treatment? Were you denied, at some point in your life, your rightful inheritance? Are you an outcast? Do you smoke pot? Do you crack the heads of dissenters? Are you a dissenter, and proud of it? Were you last seen somewhere? Do you want to be seen? Are you even visible? Do you enjoy a sinecure? Do you view life as hopeless? Are you happy? Miserable? Overflowing with existential angst? Do you admire power? Raw power: refined power: power within a velvet glove or in a steel mit? Do you believe there will be a tomorrow? Or are all our days yesterdays? Do you vote? Do you cry? Do you make love? Do you ever go to a movie?

Are your papers in order? Are you an expatriate? Has Interpol come after you? Do you still live in your native land? Have you learned yet that the Soviet Union collapsed? Do you care? Are you a student in an exclussive Islamic university? Do you hope to visit Disneyland some day? Have you? Are you a chess enthusiast? Do you play softball? Do you like girls? Have you a girl? Does she truly love you? Are you faithful? Do you prefer the night to the day, or vice versa? Have you ever felt the breeze standing on the end of a peer at dawn? Are you under investigation? Do you believe in God?

Just answer these questions thoughfully, Vax. I impatiently await your replies.

Thanks, Quinty  



21 Feb 2006 @ 02:24 by sprtskr : Here's some info.
Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.
Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.

Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. Others have simply been lost due to natural decay and poor record keeping. However, the State Department instituted a numbering system for executive orders in the early 1900s, starting retroactively with President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. Today, only National Security Directives are kept from the public.
Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

Look [link] up hundreds from several presidents
 



21 Feb 2006 @ 20:12 by vaxen : Oh...
and the Postmaster "General" gets his marching orders from, of all places, Switzerland! Check it out...

IMPLANTING HUMANs

"Though I am philosophically opposed to the necessity of technology - I am not oblivious to its presence in our program. With that said I have no objection to a RFID implant. I do not see it as an invasion of my privacy or my surrender to Silog - but as a way of not having to carry around all those damn credit and identification cards. Any right to privacy we think we have is an illusion anyway, now isn't it? What's the sense of our creator actualizing a planetary prison, zoo, game/puzzle, reality show, or experiment if you can't continually monitor the program? I always feel that I am being observed, don't you? And I do not mean by anything human. Not at least until I get my implant."---Gersten
---
"The Mexico attorney general's office implanted the so-called RFIDs -- for radio frequency identification chips -- in some employees in 2004 to restrict access to secure areas. Implanting them in the workers at CityWatcher.com is believed to be the first use of the technology in living humans in the United States."

[link]  



21 Feb 2006 @ 23:28 by jazzolog : Quinty, I Feel Left Out!
Do you think it's too late for us for the nazional society to invest in our implants? Just think how much information we have, even if we're old, and that continues to flow through of interest to Central Control!  


22 Feb 2006 @ 06:45 by vaxen : quinty?
" But everytime I open this site up and see your comment you're condescendingly shoving something down my throat. Telling me I'm an ignorant fool..."---Quinty

Ah, well...
I'd really like to know where I ever said that? Have I really ''inferred'' as much anywhere? Where? Perhaps the insecurity you feel is your own insecurity and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've ever said or posted or written about anywhere? I can sympathize with your feeling yet...

And the ''executive orders'' are not my executive orders but are there for all to see if you would but care to do the necessary re-search. As for all the other questions you ask of me I'll have to relegate them to the overall matrix of consciousness illucidated by our DARPA-net and called ''our'' own. Thanks for the questions for they are rather like a SCN rundown and do make one think.

[link]  



22 Feb 2006 @ 10:36 by rayon : jazzlog
One is not allowed to make wishes like that, second above, especially after such a fine expose such as you have done here, with myriad connections: this article should be enough on its own!  


22 Feb 2006 @ 16:40 by jazzolog : Left Behind
Yes nraye, and I suppose when the Rapture comes only the implanted ones will rise to their heavenly reward. Hmmmm, the sooner they go the better, I say! I wonder if you get splattered with birdshot, will your implant short circuit?  


22 Feb 2006 @ 17:15 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : Yo Vax
aha! You've done it again! Hold the mirror up! Now please excuse me, I have to go outdoors to kick the cat.

I'll admit though I had it coming. My remarks were somewhat cruel, and I should apologize. Maybe we should just get a divorce. Incoompatability is always a good reason for a breakup. Unless, of course, one of the two can't live without the other. Then it can become painful for one party. The other happily walks away, breathing the fresh air, thinking of the future. But life ain't fair. Who says it was. Have a good day Vax. You are you. I am I. And n'er the twain shall meet.

As for Jazz: I am willing all my prosthetic devices to the Salvation Army. They are long acquainted with need.  



22 Feb 2006 @ 21:50 by vaxen : Oops!
I did WHAT again Quinty? Maybe you should hold that fascile mirror up to your own neurons? Your "comments" didn't appear cruel, to me, only unfounded but fun nevertheless. Chew on this awhile, if you dare, and note the "plenary" powers of the "Commander in Chief:"

The psychologists, lawyers, writers, reporters, ministers, scientists, engineers and doctors who deny the reality of the harm they do as employees and as gladiators-for-hire for this global empire would also deny the nose on their face. The brightest minds on earth gave us the nuclear bomb... deployed by the dumbest, most venal minds on earth. Science and medicine and the law, in the service of military aggression, do not discover knowledge, heal or seek truth. Rather, they become weapons themselves, no better than cudgels wielded by cavemen. The scientist, doctor, psychologist, chaplain or reporter who sell their services, and their professional oaths, their professional creeds, their professional standards, for the sake of a Job, a Career and Security, do not deserve the name "professionals." These are not real doctors, psychologists, lawyers or scientists who "research" on behalf of their clients and employers how better to harm people, how more efficiently to interrogate them, how more effectively to kill them, how to sell them more drugs, more lies and more harmful products, how to develop more intrusive technologies to probe private lives. They are prostitutes. They are mice. They are the facilitators of crime. They know it. We know it.


Given Bush’s now open assertions that he is using his “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their constitutional rights protect them from government actions. As former Vice President Al Gore asked after recounting a litany of sweeping powers that Bush has asserted to fight the War on Terror, “Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?” In such extraordinary circumstances, the American people might legitimately ask exactly what the Bush administration means by the “rapid development of new programs,” which might require the construction of a new network of detention camps.

[link]
further linkage:
[link]  



22 Feb 2006 @ 21:57 by jazzolog : What Do Americans Say About "Rights"?
Fuck 'em! I just wanna be safe...and drive my 4-wheeler until I'm too old, and graduate to my rideabout mower. The only people who use those stupid rights are hippies and treehuggers! Who needs 'em? Lock 'em up! As jmarc said recently, "On to Iran!"  


22 Feb 2006 @ 23:26 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : Which may not be
out of sight. Iran, that is. A few commentators (those of you who prefer the world our mass media daily offers may just tar me and Vax and anyone else here concerned with these matters as cranks) have even considered that "tactical H bombs" may be used. I thought they were still under construction, but I suppose we shall see. Can anyone think of anything more insane than attacking Iran?

Say, Vax: did you write that second paragraph yourself? It's very good. At least I think so. Look, try treating me and the other folks here with a little respect. Calling us nitwits and boobs before you even say anything else doesn't exactly establish a predisposition for taking you seriously. But, hey, who am I to talk? Have I ever made a fool of myself? Or is that really the issue? I mean, making a fool of oneself? The answer, by the way, is many times.

Yo Jazz. Yeah, I thought though these rich folk care only about the shine in their evening martinis are more concerned with those deep, intimate moments when they sit out in the verandah, and watch the sun set, worrying about the vital minutiae in their lives? Have they surmounted their existential questions and look peacefully about? Are they serenely at peace with God? Or whatever is out there? Does the chorus of crickets make them feel one with the firmament? The stars? And the eternal peace of the night? Looking at the looney world George W has brought us makes that hard to believe.  



23 Feb 2006 @ 01:38 by jmarc : thanks
for the quote, I guess.
Are the plainclothes government agents parking outside your house, tapping your phone, threaghtening your job, auditing your tax returns? I sincerely doubt it and hope that's not the case.

Your blog and a million others are a daily reminder that we're still safely ensconced in whatever rights we assumed we had.

I recently tried making my own martinis, and found the dirty martini to be ok. To make a dirty martini, you just throw in a splash of the juice from the olive jar. It's not bad but I really prefer a good single malt scotch to vodka or gin. Of course, a good joint of skunk weed would trump all of that in a heart beat. But then lent is coming so we better get to it quickly.

Back when I took my new age reading from out of the way bookstores, instead of the interweb, I found a little book solely devoted to the purple flame. It had been dowsed in some strange perfume before the sale, (by the publisher maybe?) which gave it a sort of mystique you just can't get from reading on the WWW. It was kind of interesting, but not interesting enough to keep. I visualised myself in the violet flame for a few weeks. It came to pass that I ended up at the dentist for some major dental work a short time later, and was happy to see the violet light finally manifested in the dentists set of tools. He had to wear a special set of goggles though, and advised me not to look at it either. I'll let you guess whether I looked or not.

Yes Q, we do feel at one with the firmament once in a while, unless it's eating the lettuce and beans out of our gardens. Then we just put a call in to Dick Cheney and he comes over and takes care of that. We make sure not to be within range when he shows up.

Anyway, I see a three way election coming up next time, in the same vein as Perot, or Jack Anderson's candidacies.(remember Anderson?). Maybe enough people will come together in the middle to isolate the wackos on the far right and left. We shall see. Until then I'll stick with the republicans I think. Although they haven't invited me to tea yet.
Did you get to enjoy your tea with the professors yet Jazz? Earl grey or orange pekoe? Probably some exotic brew from India or Mongolia? Do tell.

ex·ec·u·tive
n.

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
2. The chief officer of a government, state, or political division.

I would think that the executive branch was given equal weight in the government to break through the unwieldiness of having to vote on everything every step of the way. But what do I know?  



23 Feb 2006 @ 01:47 by jmarc : tactical H bombs?
I think tactical protestor will be used, and tactical radio broadcasts are already being used. They've worked so well here in this country, after all. LINK  


23 Feb 2006 @ 10:39 by jazzolog : Agents, Squires & Poor Slobs
I wasn't thinking of a martini on the veranda, Paul. Out here the average joe has a patio overlooking the huge plastic swimming pool. The guys on the verandas are more like the professors jmarc is making fun of. Or public school administrators who want to imitate rich CEOs at the country club. That whole bunch of Yankee aristocrats is expert at humoring each other during the daily schmooze. The guy I was envisioning is the jerk who has consistently voted against his own economic interests in every election since Reagan. He thinks when he elects a crook who promises him "tax relief" that he's actually going to see more loose change in his pocket. Maybe he will, if he doesn't mind losing every federal social program constructed since the New Deal...and continues to vote locally against the resulting appropriations increases needed by schools and highway maintenance.

As for the agents outside my door jmarc, we live in a rather isolated location in the country, on a hill quite a ways from the road. A couple months ago, during the night we showed the Wal-Mart movie at the library in town, we had our rural mailbox stolen. Yeah, a coincidence I'm sure. And kids will be kids. Even the increasing numbers now moving around at night in gangs, both in cities and small towns. You haven't seen that in New Hampshire?

William Rivers Pitt's latest essay is about a wargame Homeland Security is playing these days called CyberStorm. "'Participants confirmed,' wrote the Associated Press, that 'parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events.'" [link] Respond? Would that be with a well-reasoned comment? Hopefully. On the other hand, we should remember this development~~~

10-Year U.S. Strategic Plan For Detention Camps Revives Proposals From Oliver North
Peter Dale Scott, New America Media, Feb 21, 2006

Editor's Note: A recently announced contract for a Halliburton subsidiary to build immigrant detention facilities is part of a longer-term Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists." Scott is author of "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). He is completing a book on "The Road to 9/11." Visit his Web site at [link]

The Halliburton subsidiary KBR (formerly Brown and Root) announced on Jan. 24 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps. Two weeks later, on Feb. 6, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds (an increase of 32 percent over 2006). This $400 million allocation is more than a four-fold increase over the FY 2006 budget, which provided only $90 million for the same purpose.

Both the contract and the budget allocation are in partial fulfillment of an ambitious 10-year Homeland Security strategic plan, code-named ENDGAME, authorized in 2003. According to a 49-page Homeland Security document on the plan, ENDGAME expands "a mission first articulated in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798." Its goal is the capability to "remove all removable aliens," including "illegal economic migrants, aliens who have committed criminal acts, asylum-seekers (required to be retained by law) or potential terrorists."

There is no question that the Bush administration is under considerable political pressure to increase the detentions of illegal immigrants, especially from across the Mexican border. Confrontations along the border are increasingly violent, often involving the drug traffic.

But the problem of illegal immigration cannot be separated from other Bush administration policies: principally the retreat from traditional American programs designed to combat poverty in Latin America. In Florida last week, Democratic Party leader Howard Dean attacked the new federal budget for its almost 30 percent cut in development aid to Latin America and the Caribbean.

In truth, both parties have virtually abandoned the John F. Kennedy vision of an Alliance for Progress in Latin America. Kennedy's hope was that, by raising the standard of living of Latin America's poor, there would be less pressure on them to emigrate to the United States.

That vision foundered when successive administrations, both Democratic and Republican, contributed to the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Brazil, Chile and elsewhere, replacing them with oppressive dictatorships.

Since about 1970, the policies of the U.S.-dominated International Monetary Fund have also aggravated the problem of poverty in the rest of the world, especially Latin America. U.S. programs abroad, like programs at home, are now designed principally around the concept of security -- above all for oil installations and pipelines.

In consequence, the United States is being redefined as a vast gated community, hoping to isolate itself by force from its poverty-stricken neighbors. Inside the U.S. fortress sit 2.1 million prisoners, a greater percentage of the population than in any other nation. ENDGAME's crash program is designed to house additional detainees who have not been convicted of crimes.

Significantly, both the KBR contract and the ENDGAME plan are open-ended. The contract calls for a response to "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." "New programs" is of course a term with no precise limitation. So, in the current administration, is ENDGAME's goal of removing "potential terrorists."

It is relevant that in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be "enemy combatants." On Feb. 17 of this year, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country's security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called "news informers" who needed to be combated in "a contest of wills." Two days earlier, citing speeches critical of Bush by Al Gore, John Kerry, and Howard Dean, conservative columnist Ben Shapiro called for "legislation to prosecute such sedition."

Since 9/11 the Bush administration has implemented a number of inter-related programs, which had been planned for secretly in the 1980s under President Reagan. These so-called "Continuity of Government" or COG proposals included vastly expanded detention capabilities, warrantless eavesdropping and detention, and preparations for greater use of martial law.

Prominent among the secret planners of this program in the 1980s were then-Congressman Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was in private business as CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle.

The principal desk officer for the program was Oliver North, until he was forced to resign in 1986 over Iran-Contra.

When planes crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney's response, after consulting President Bush, was to implement a classified "Continuity of Government" plan for the first time, according to the 9/11 Commission report. As the Washington Post later explained, the order "dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans."

What these managers in this shadow government worked on has never been reported. But it is significant that the group that prepared ENDGAME was, as the Homeland Security document puts it, "chartered in September 2001." For ENDGAME's goal of a capacious detention capability is remarkably similar to Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" for COG in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.

North's exercise, which reportedly contemplated possible suspension of the United States Constitution, led to questions being asked during the Iran-Contra Hearings. One concern then was that North's plans for expanded internment and detention facilities would not be confined to "refugees" alone.

Oliver North represented a minority element in the Reagan administration, which soon distanced itself from both the man and his proposals. But that minority associated with COG planning, which included Dick Cheney, appear to be in control of the U.S. government today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2004 Pacific News Service
[link]  



23 Feb 2006 @ 17:38 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : It can't happen here


If it happened anywhere it can happen here as well. Especially if the safeguards, which are only rules, are let down. And no one pays attention to checks and balances, the law, or Constitution. We see now that the Republicans in the Congress and White House are exerting as much pressure as they can to gain more power. Though at this moment there a few Republicans who balk: who actually take their responsibilities under the Constitution and the law seriously. How long will that last?

We once laughed at Hitler and Mussolini and Franco because they were grotesques, strutting about in their military uniforms, clicking their heels, behaving ridiculously. Bush is a comic figure too but unlike H and M and F he is, of course, uniquely American. And many Americans relate to him, in the same way authoritarian Spaniards related to Franco, who was quintessentially a Spanish bourgeois with a military streak. The atmosphere Bush has created in this country for me, at least, is extremely unsettling. To me it seems giddy, unbalanced, deeply irrational and representative of all the worst aspects of our society. Religious fanaticism, greed, unbridled reckless power, both corporate and in government. And, as you said in an earlier post, Richard, nothing seems to contain Bush. At this moment there appears to be some doubt on the part of many in his party. Will this be the tipping point? I don't know. But as Jmarc remarked we still have freedom of speech. When that's gone it will all be over. My crystal ball though is most unclear: but I think we are victims of the Chinese curse by living in "interesting times." I see it as a nightmare. And I hope it soon ends.

Now, as for those of you who wear white powdered wigs.... How could you understand my garbled sentences to begin with?  



26 Feb 2006 @ 20:37 by vaxen : Easily:
The only way to change public policy is to prevent private law from having any part in making public policy. This can only be accomplished by each individual acting separately and independently using Public Laws for private purposes. The only way the individual can do this is to move out of the public charitable religious trust that is making the public policy and take back his estate into his absolute control. Remember, Public Laws are laws that guarantee separation of powers so private conscience laws cannot dictate public policy. All political action groups have failed to make any difference, because of their inability to recognize that our nation was established first and foremost as an assembly of individuals acting independently in their own best interest without harm to another - basic general common law.  


26 Feb 2006 @ 21:03 by vaxen : Free Speech?
Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet
The Pentagon is aiming for “full spectrum dominance” of the Internet. Their objective is to manipulate public perceptions, quash competing points of view, and perpetuate a narrative of American generosity and good-will.
The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline.

[link]  



12 Mar 2006 @ 19:59 by Quinty @68.226.88.25 : An era of euphemisms

Since GWB took the helm there has been a marked increase of comparisons of Bushisms to Orwellian newspeak. Another new related euphemism which has begun to appear in polite conversation is "the upcoming Constitutional crisis." Which is a nice way of referring to the possible emergence of a Bush dictatorship.

The positive side of this polite characterization (did everyone see what Justice O'Connor recently said?)is that it implies a struggle. That in a crisis there will be those who resist a "unitary" (another euphemism) presidency. Perhaps the Congress, and many Republicans too? Those who still believe in the Constitution.

Are things going badly in Iraq? Well, you know whose fault that is, don't you? Ours. Those of us who have always opposed the war. That is, if you listen to the likes of Laura Ingraham on the radio. She was crying out recently that because you and I, the nay sayers, don't properly "back the troops," the terrorists will win. The logic of this is baffling for a number of reasons. One being that whether many of us oppose the war or not the US military still goes about its business in Iraq and the entire might of the United States is being employed in the "war on terrorism." (Another nice euphemism, or perhaps that one is just a simple lie?)

Anyway, you and I, those of us who always opposed this insanity in Iraq, we can't win, can we? Having predicted a debacle there now that it's actually coming to pass it's our fault. We're to blame for the US's failure. Once again the Bushies skip off scot-free without having to take any blame. It was the "nay sayers" fault. Those who wouldn't "stay the course." There still those saying that about Vietnam, amazing as it may seem.  



4 Apr 2006 @ 09:52 by jazzolog @207.69.138.139 : Set The Channel Please To FOX
Here's this week's poem from Calvin Trillin in The Nation~~~

On the Revelation That Dick Cheney Requires The Television to Be Pre-set to Fox News in Any Hotel Room He Is About to Occupy


The networks give Bush knocks or mocks.
They paint him stubborn as an ox
And clever as a box of rocks.
So set the channel, please, to Fox.

Some commentators on the box
Like making us the laughingstocks.
Upon foul PBS a pox!
Just set the channel, please, to Fox.

That CNN will broadcast crocks
On Arabs managing our docks
And deaths in wars and other shocks.
Now set the channel, please, to Fox.

For me, the news that really rocks
Confirms beliefs held by our flocks.
My mind remains quite closed, with locks.
So set the channel, please, to Fox.


---Calvin Trillin
| posted March 30, 2006 (April 17, 2006 issue)
[link]
 



17 Oct 2016 @ 15:25 by yakuza4d @103.12.162.3 : togel online hongkong
After read a couple of the articles on your website these few days, and I truly like your style of blogging. I tag it to my favorites internet site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site also and let me know what you think.
praturan
[link]
home
[link]
daftar
[link]
cara main
[link]
hasil
[link]
buku mimpi
[link]  



28 Nov 2016 @ 19:25 by dokterpoker @43.252.17.165 : agen poker
found in the capitalist powers, England and France in the first instance, with America close behind them
praturan
[link]
jadwal
[link]
promo
[link]
panduan
[link]
main
[link]  



Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other entries in
20 Sep 2008 @ 16:54: Learn To Play Ball
13 May 2008 @ 09:52: Apocalypse Anonymous
24 Feb 2008 @ 13:25: What's With Hillary?
22 Dec 2007 @ 13:11: Ernest Chappell's A Christmas Carol
17 Sep 2007 @ 09:57: This Is Worse Than Viet Nam
25 Jun 2007 @ 11:12: When Christians Torture
25 Mar 2007 @ 10:15: The Only Answer To Organized Money Is Organized People
11 Jan 2007 @ 10:42: The Gas Pump President
14 Oct 2006 @ 12:42: A Little Reflection
26 Jun 2006 @ 11:14: So You Think There's A Right To Vote?



[< Back] [jazzoLOG] [PermaLink]?