text:
The Federal Reserve Lowers US Economic Outlook
Obama lapdog, con artist extrordinaire Bernake further attempts to desensitize, water down coming holocaust in America
The US Federal Reserve has significantly cut its projection for the country's economic growth and says it does not expect the unemployment rate to fall much in 2012.
Obama poodle Bernake attempts to bullshit Americans again
The US central bank said on Wednesday that it now expected the economy to expand between 1.9 percent and 2.4 percent this year, a lot slower than the Fed's April forecast which predicted a 2.4 to 2.9 percent economic growth rate, The New York Times reported.
The Federal Reserve also projected that the jobless rate would fall to eight percent from the current 8.2 percent by the end of the year. In April, the Fed had predicted that the rate could fall to 7.8 percent at the end of 2012.
At a news conference in Washington, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the Fed misjudged the strength of the recovery in the past, adding that new facts forced it to change the estimates.
"The outlook has changed… Like many other forecasters, the Federal Reserve was too optimistic early in the recovery about the pace of the recovery," he said.
Welcome home, America
"There has been a great deal of economic news since our last meeting," he stated. Bernanke also called the most recent data "somewhat disappointing."
A study by Indiana University, which was released in January, said about 10 million more US citizens joined the poor in the country between 2006 and 2010, with the number of the poor set to rise due to sluggish economic recovery.
The number of the US citizens living in poverty increased to 46.2 million in 2010, up 27 percent from 36.5 million in 2006.
GJH/MHB/AS/HN
Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5th Estate.
Images: Google royalty free unless otherwise attributed.
This news site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Food Stamp Vote In Senate Blocks Bid To Restore $4.5 Billion In Aid
Little by little, one small piece at a time, the Obama criminal regime, congress are dismantling our social services, strangling Americans: If this is not proof that Obama wants the homeless, poor, disabled Seniors and Veterans dead....
By Michael McAuliff
WASHINGTON --
The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a bid to preserve some $4.5 billion in food stamps funding, as part of the massive farm bill, on Tuesday.
Congress, Obama just guaranteed American children will starve
The amendment to keep that spending in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), failed 33 to 66. Sixty votes were needed to pass.
Gillibrand had hoped to prevent food aid cuts in the $969 billion bill by trimming the guaranteed profit for crop insurance companies from 14 to 12 percent and by lowering payments for crop insurers from $1.3 billion to $825 million.
"We all here in this chamber take the ability to feed our children for granted. That is not the case for too many families in America," Gillibrand said just before the vote. "Put yourselves for just a moment in their shoes. Imagine being a parent who cannot feed your children the food they need to grow. It's beneath this body to cut food assistance for those who are struggling the most among us."
The cuts target the so-called heat-and-eat initiative in which 14 states automatically make families eligible for more food aid if they receive even $1 in help paying their utility bills. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the decrease would amount to about $90 a month for an affected family, representing a quarter of its food budget.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand heroically tried to save funds
"Half of the food stamp beneficiaries are children, 17 percent are seniors, and unfortunately now 1.5 million households are veteran households that are receiving food stamps," Gillibrand said, referring not just to heat-and-eat participants, but the broader population of food stamp recipients.
Four of Gillbrand's colleagues on the Republican side voted with her, including Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who was a co-sponsor of the amendment. But 22 of her fellow Democrats balked, seeing as abuse the heat-and-eat initiative she was trying to save. Those Democrats included the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
"Here's what's going on: In a handful of states, they found a way to increase the SNAP benefits for people in their states by sending $1 checks in heating assistance to everyone who gets food assistance," said Stabenow. She allowed that heating costs are properly a factor in determining the need for aid, but said that states like New York and Massachusetts are going too far.
Take, take, take: Stabenow explains "accountability and integrity"
"Sending out $1 checks to everyone isn't the intent of Congress," Stabenow said. "For the small number of states that are doing that, it is undermining the integrity of the program in my judgment. This is about accountability and integrity."
Congress has grown increasingly concerned about spending for the food stamp program. Some 26 million Americans received the aid in 2007, while more than 44 million received it last year, at a cost of $76 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimated recently that demand will continue to grow through 2014 in the wake of the recession.
The House has proposed even steeper cuts. The 2013 budget resolution passed by the lower chamber calls for $134 billion in cuts over 10 years. The House Agriculture Committee's version of the farm bill would slash $33 billion over 10 years.
The future of the poor, middle class America: Eating out of trash cans to survive, or winding up in prison for stealing food for their children - prisons now being a booming industry in the U.S.
The Senate's version, while much more modest in its cuts, would move in the same direction. Moreover, it likely represents the best-case scenario for food stamp advocates when House and Senate negotiators work out the differences between their measures later in the year.
The Senate's farm bill is expected to pass later this week.
Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.
THE COUP OF 2012: Encroachment Upon Basic Freedoms, Militarized Police State in America
Behold your future, America: The price of inaction
By Frank Morales
Back in 1992 the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff held a "Strategy Essay Competition."
The winner was a National War College student paper entitled, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." Authored by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. the paper is a well documented, "darkly imagined excursion into the future." The ostensibly fictional work is written from the perspective of an imprisoned senior military officer about to be executed for opposing the military takeover of America, a coup accomplished through "legal" means. The essay makes the point that the coup was "the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992," including "the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses," particularly law enforcement.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/1992/1992%20dunlap.pdf
Dunlap cites what he considered a dangerous precedent, the 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act, an act that sanctioned US military engagement with law enforcement in domestic "support operations," including "civil disturbance" operations. The act codified the lawful status and use of military "assets" in domestic police work.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-18
Encroachment upon Basic Freedoms
Since that time the American people have been subject to a series of deeper and deeper encroachments upon our basic freedoms, increasingly extensive deployment of military operations on the home front, perpetrated by a corporate driven military mission creep that now claims the right and duty to arrest and detain us on the word of a Pentagon or White House operative. President Obama's signing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) whose Section 1021 sanctions the military detention of American citizens without charge, essentially aims to put the last nail in the coffin of our Constitution, our teetering Republic and our most basic democratic traditions.
The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had "serious reservations" about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration ("you can trust me") would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course (of course) shortly before Congress voted on the final bill, which the President signed on the 31st of December 2011, a day that will go down in infamy.
"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." According to Senator Dianne Feinstein. "Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge." Think again. (Guardian, 12/14/11)
Under the legislation, suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities." They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue. A spokesperson for Human Rights Watch implied that the signing of such a bill by a President would have once been unthinkable, noting that "the paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is." Further, "it wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."
In fact, the heads of several "security agencies," including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. Even some within the Pentagon itself said they were against the bill. No matter, and no matter the intention inherent in lip service opposition, the corporate elite who drive the disastrous and inhumane polices of this country see it otherwise, and they, not the generals or anyone else, call the shots!
And they've been at this for some time. A persistent and on-gong counter-insurgency directed against the American people, the detention provisions embedded in the NDAA are about more than "social control." It amounts to a direct attack on the person, an "unreasonable search and seizure" in the cause of maintaining the shaky capitalist ship of state; suppressing popular resistance, dissent and protest, movements of peace and justice, recast as "civil disorder," "civil disturbance" and "domestic terror."
Current U.S. military preparations for suppressing "civil disturbance" and "domestic terrorism" including the training of National Guard troops, local police and the authorization of massive surveillance, are part of a long history of American "internal security" measures dating back to the first American Revolution. Generally, these measures have sought to thwart the aims of social justice movements, embodying the concept, promulgated by elite sectors intent on maintaining their grip on the levers of state; that within the civilian body politic lurks an enemy that one day the military might have to fight; or at least be ordered to fight. (See: Army Surveillance in America, 1775-1980, Joan M. Jensen, Yale University Press, 1991)
Thus, in reaction to a period of social upsurge flush with movements of liberation, justice and peace, and the mounting of powerful campaigns which threatened the status quo and elite control, the US military's stand alone apparatus for conducting "civil disturbance suppression" operations, including detention, was born, immediately on the heels of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968.
The Garden Plot Operation
US Military Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, code-named Operation Garden Plot, follows, as was mentioned, in the footsteps of a long tradition of US military involvement in the suppression of dissent. Intriguingly, the Garden Plot operation is cited in documents related to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. (See: Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King, William Pepper, Carroll and Graf, 1995)
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Other/GARDEN_PLOT_DoD_Civil_DisturbancePlan.pdf
http://www.911truth.org/osamas/morales.html
Currently, the Garden Plot operation is centered at the Pentagon's Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). "Stood up" in 2002, (though In the works prior to 9/11), NORTHCOM, America's "domestic military command," is tasked with various "counter-terror," "homeland defense" and "homeland security" activities, including "civil disturbance suppression" operations, and "assisting law enforcement" within Canada, the United States and Mexico. http://www.northcom.mil/
Under NORTHCOM, Operation Garden Plot functions, with the US Army as "executive agent," as "ConPlan 2502." In two parts, the "con plan" is officially listed as: United States Northern Command, Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 3501 (formerly 2501), Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), dated 11 April 2006; and the United States Northern Command, Concept Plan 3502 (formerly 2502), Defense Support of Civil Authorities for Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO), 23 January 2007.
As noted above, the latest development in the Pentagon's evolving mission of suppressing, at the behest of it's corporate "civilian" overseers, a detention provision, is buried within the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 signed by President Obama in the fog (grog) of this past New Years Eve.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
NDAA 2012
Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012 seemingly allows (the language is evasive) for the detention (without trial or charges) of American citizens redefined by the "executive" elite as "enemy combatants" in the so-called "war on terror, " a "war" which has become in the eyes of many, a war against the Constitution and civil liberties, a war against the disenchanted, fed-up and dissenting American public, spearheaded by a militarized police state allied to imperial military courts and "tribunals," buttressed and rationalized with mind-bending mil-speak of "enemy combatants," "unlawful combatants," "enemy belligerents," "homeland battlefield" "domestic extremists" "domestic terrorists" and the like.
And yet, behind all the sophistry, lies and manipulation, the brutal truth is obvious: The corporate elite that directs things has seen fit to unleash it's military on it's own people in a desperate attempt to suppress the democratic (read: protest) rights of it's citizenry, us! Why? Simple: the paranoia of the thief, the well founded fear that knows that forced deprivation and scarcities, violence at home and abroad, rooted in greed, has run it's course in America. And they are right! And so, it makes ominous sense that we are confronted with the horrific machinations of forced detention for those who resist a "new world order" come home in a "homeland" which opportunistically collapses all distinction between dissent and terrorism, police and military, right and wrong, obfuscating the truth of who the real terrorists are!
When Congress passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it included provisions that authorized U.S. armed forces to detain persons who are captured in the conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces." Section 1021 entitled "AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE" allows for the President (whoever that may be) "to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force … to detain covered persons …pending disposition under the law of war."
"A covered person," according to the edict's malleable lingo, is "any person … who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks …" or, who "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban," or "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
Accordingly, "the disposition of a person under the law of war" will include "detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities …" Now, by stating that "nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force," and that "nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States," it would appear that the law exempts American citizens from the threat of detention. Correct?
Detention is a booming industry
Don't be too confident. Detention is a booming industry. In 2006 the Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported that Halliburton off-spring, "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellogg, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." The $385 million dollars over 5 year contract "is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" building "temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." Could the 2012 NDAA / Section 1021 be such a "new program?"
There has been some confusion over what Section 1021 actually means, and that in and of itself is cause for concern. Congressional spokespeople have stated that the provisions of NDAA 2012 / Sec 1021 do not provide any "new authority" to detain U.S. citizens or others who may be captured in the United States. Obama waffled likewise in the lead up to his signing the provision. Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, ho-hummed and said that, "we are simply codifying existing law." But that was an evasion, since existing law, like it or not, regarding the detention of U.S. persons in the "war on terror" is indeterminate in important respects. And "indeterminate" is not good enough!
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service fleshes out the law of detention as set forth in Section 1021, identifying what is known to be true as well as what is unsettled and unresolved. It is perfectly clear, for example, that a U.S. citizen who fights alongside "enemy forces" against the United States on a foreign battlefield could be lawfully detained. This was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42337.pdf
On the other hand, the CRS report explains, "the President's legal authority to militarily detain terrorist suspects apprehended in the United States has not been definitively settled." Nor has Congress helped to settle it. "This bill does not endorse either side's interpretation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, "but leaves it to the courts to decide."
So, if a detention of a U.S. person does occur, the CRS said, "it will be up to a court to determine Congress's intent when it enacted the AUMF [the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force], or alternatively, to decide whether the law as it was subsequently developed by the courts and executive branch sufficiently established that authority for such detention already exists."
Up to now, "lower courts that have addressed questions the Supreme Court left unanswered have not achieved a consensus on the extent to which Congress has authorized the detention without trial of U.S. persons as 'enemy combatants,' and Congress has not so far clarified its intent."
Well, it is certainly reassuring that a New York court has sought to clarify it's intent on the matter. On May 16, 2012 a newly appointed federal district judge, Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued a ruling, hailed by many, which preliminarily enjoins (prohibits) enforcement of the indefinite detention provisions (Sec 1021) of the NDAA 2012.
http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.16-Opinion-Granting-PI.pdf
The "temporary restraining order" came as a result of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violated both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. "The government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [Section] 1021," Judge Forrest said in her ruling. "Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years."
Where it will go from here is anybodies guess. Judge Forrest's ruling was not permanent. A day after the ruling, the Wall Street Journal, for it's part, offered it's sour grapes, pontificating that the ruling "will be overturned on appeal," while "its reasoning needs to be deconstructed so it doesn't do more harm in the meantime." A week later, on the 25th, federal prosecutors from Obama's Department of Justice, calling Judge Forrest's ruling "extraordinary," suggested that she lift the injunction, claiming further that her ruling only effects those plaintiffs named and not other potential or future targets of the draconian legislation.
http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.25-Govt-Motion-for-Reconsideration.pdf
Well, a few days ago on June 6th the upright Judge Forrest responded with an 8 page, "memorandum and opinion" in which she sought to "eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order's scope." (New York Times, "Detention Provision is Blocked" 6/7/12). And as to whom and for whom her original order was intended: "The May 16th order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court – or by Congress." That's clear enough!
So, as it stands now now, although Judge Forrest's decision may temporarily protect Americans from provision 1021, it remains to be seen what the higher courts do should Obama's people appeal. And unfortunately, Judge Forrest's ruling, as praiseworthy as it is, does nothing to spare both foreign reporters and civilians from a life of imprisonment, let alone the more than 6 billion citizens of foreign nations who can still be handcuffed and hauled away to a US military prison without ever being brought to trial.
So, bottom line, given the indeterminate nature of a law that would snatch us up off the streets, throw away the key, and grant us little or no access to a trial let alone legal counsel of choice not vetted by the Pentagon, we should have no illusions that we are well along the slippery indeterminate slope to a full blown militarized police state; the complete identification, coordination and consolidation of the police and military function in America in the interests of an elite who regard us as the enemy, maybe even their property! Maybe even as targets for assassination!
Naked violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution
We should recall, that the current attempt by the executive to designate American citizens for detention without trial; a naked violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure and the guarantee of a trial, was preceded by the administration's "resolve" to assassinate at will Americans abroad, place them on a "kill list," and eliminate them. According to the New York Times "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," (5/29/12) the President and his advisors have made it clear that they have the authority "to order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial."
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel rationalized such a move in "a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch." (New York Times, "Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen," 10/8/11) Accordingly, after a dubious period of "internal deliberations," Mr. Obama gave his approval, and the cleric Anwar al-Awlak was assassinated in September 2011, along with an associate Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but happened to be traveling with Mr. al-Awlak. Apparently, campaign rhetoric and public demeanor to the contrary, when asked what surprised him most about Mr. Obama, Mr. Donilon, the national security adviser, answered immediately: "He's a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States."
The Posse Comitatus Act
How did we get here? We need to recognize that the "massive diversion of military resources" into domestic law enforcement for the purposes of suppressing dissent and worse has a long history, a history that has witnessed the steady evisceration of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the sole federal statute that criminalizes military incursions into the domain of domestic law enforcement. The Act is the backbone of our democratic republican tradition of separating the military and police function in this country and represents the ultimate bulwark against military dictatorship in the interests of the rich. That is the reason it is and continues to be attacked, ridiculed and ignored by elements in both the corporate and military spheres. For example, "Current Obstacles to Fully Preparing Title 10 Forces for Homeland Defense and Civil Support" by Commander James S. Campbell, United States Navy, May 2008 and, "The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Law Enforcement Title" by COL (Ret) John R. Brinkerhoff, December 2004, both seek to delegitimize and undercut the status and importance of the Act, a law so critical to the maintenance of our freedoms, and yet, a law about which most Americans remain unaware.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487235
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/10-16/ch_11.asp
The 1878 Act, 18 USC § 1385 - USE OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE AS POSSE COMITATUS, more popularly known as The Posse Comitatus Act, reads as follows:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, wilfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a Posse Comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
As noted, the 1981 Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement law would seemingly violate the spirit if not the letter of this Act. Nonetheless, like a slowly boiling pot relentlessly eating away at our freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression, the utilization of military assets, under cover of law enforcement to suppress our democratic rights has proceeded steadily by design, virtually un-noticed.
Historical milestones: eating away at our freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression
A very limited listing of some historical milestones:
* In 1968, as mentioned above, concurrent with the creation of the Federal Commission on Civil Disorder, better known as the Kerner Commission, the Pentagon hatched it's very own "civil disorder" operation. "US Military Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2," code named "Garden Plot," coordinates, until this day, all aspects of "civil disturbance suppression" in America, including the use of so-called "non-lethal weapons" during conveniently designated domestic "operations other than war" (OOTW), and "military operations in urban terrain" (MOUT), a "war" which pits "non-combatant" citizens and protesters (overwhelmingly non-violent) against militarized police on the streets of America.
* Only a few months after the round up and detention of 7,000 anti-war protesters in Washington DC, imprisoned in RFK stadium, an early Garden Plot operation, the 1971 Non-Detention Act was passed, specifically to repeal portions of the 1950 "anti-communist" "Emergency Detention Act" which had allowed for detention of suspected subversives without the normal Constitutional checks required for imprisonment. The Non-Detention Act required specific Congressional authorization for such detention. It reads that, "no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." In recent years, the statute has been used to challenge military detainment of U.S. citizens accused of terrorist activity, as in the case of Jose Padilla.
http://www.jenner.com/system/assets/assets/5417/original/18.pdf?1321652398
A Congressional Research Service report on the history of the Non-Detention Act noted that, "legislative debate, committee reports, and the political context of 1971 indicate that when Congress enacted Section 4001(a) it intended the statutory language to restrict all detentions by the executive branch, not merely those by the Attorney General." Further, "lawmakers, both supporters and opponents of Section 4001(a), recognized that it would restrict the President and military authorities."
As for the Padilla case, the Supreme Court of the United States originally took the 2004 case of Rumsfeld v. Padilla to decide the question of whether Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen, which would run afoul of the Non Detention Act. But it did not give an answer, instead ruling that the case had been "improperly filed." And so the issue, as to whether and under what circumstances the military can pick you up, detain and imprison you, without charging you, from the point of view the Supreme Court, remains "unsettled."
* Also in 1971, the California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI) was created. Headed up by Louis Giuffrida, formerly of Army Combat Command, the first director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), CSTI introduced the Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) concept, offering courses on "civil disorder management" for select "militarized" police and National Guard units armed and trained for domestic operations in the urban centers of America. During this period the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) facilitated federal funding and other military largess to the burgeoning militarized sectors of the domestic police forces along with training of selected National Guard units. Still in operation, CSTI is currently headed up by William J. Hatch Colonel, USA (RET), while funding for militarizing local police departments these days is facilitated by the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, funding which has increased drastically since 9/11.
http://americaswarwithin.org/articles/2011/12/21/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear
* In 1975 the Trilateral Commission, a Western European, Japanese, US corporate think-tank convened by David Rockefeller, issued a report entitled, "The Crisis of Democracy." (NYU Press, 1975) Authored by none other than Samuel Huntington. ("Clash of Civilizations"). Huntington's book is a blueprint for the on-going counter-revolution in America, emphasizing the elite requirement of suppressing democratic "insurgency," the "distemper" of the 60s, a "distemper" that according to Huntington, stemmed from an "excess of democracy." The only and final solution therefore is to "moderate" and "shrink democracy," concluding that, "there are potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy."
http://www.wrijneveld.nl/Boekenplank/BoekenVanAanhangersVanDeNieuweWereldOrde/1975-TC-The-Crisis-of-Democracy.pdf
* In 1983, the US Army published Field Manual 3-19-15, Civil Disturbance Operations (since updated in 2005). The manual addresses civil disturbance operations in both continental United States (CONUS) and outside continental United States (OCONUS). It states that, "today, United States (US) forces are deployed on peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and humanitarian assistance operations worldwide. During these operations, US forces are often faced with unruly and violent crowds intent on disrupting peace and the ability of US forces to maintain peace. Worldwide instability coupled with increasing US military participation in peacekeeping and related operations requires that US forces have access to the most current doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) necessary to quell riots and restore public order."
"In addition to covering civil unrest doctrine for CONUS operations, FM 3-19.15 addresses domestic unrest and the military role in providing assistance to civil authorities requesting it for civil disturbance operations …The principles of civil disturbance operations, planning and training for such operations, and the TTP ["tactics, techniques and procedures"] employed to control civil disturbances and neutralize special threats are discussed in this manual. It also addresses special planning and preparation that are needed to quell riots in confinement facilities are also discussed. In the past, commanders were limited to the type of force they could apply to quell a riot. Riot batons, riot control agents, or lethal force were often used. Today, there is a wide array of nonlethal weapons (NLW) available to the commander that extends his use of force along the force continuum. This manual addresses the use of nonlethal (NL) and lethal forces when quelling a riot." And as noted, the training is meant to be operative in both foreign and domestic contexts, the war abroad, the war at home.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf
* In 1986, the Pentagon issues Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, or DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials. US military involvement in domestic law enforcement is subsumed and rationalized under "doctrines" entitled Operations Other Than War (OOTW) and Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT), along with divisions known as Military Support to Law Enforcement Agencies (MSLEA) and Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552505p.pdf
* In 1992 President Clinton's Justice Department consolidated a partnership with the Pentagon in the area of "technology transfer." The so-called "technology transfer agreements" allowed for the military to weaponize domestic police forces, further enhancing the growth of para-military "special forces" like "special units" in local police departments across the country, including "civil disturbance" units and training. The Clinton administration extended the police/military connection by mandating that the Department of Defense and its associated private industries form a partnership with the Department of Justice to "engage the crime war with the same resolve they fought the Cold War." The program, entitled, "Technology Transfer From Defense: Concealed Weapons Detection," ("Technology Transfer from Defense: Concealed Weapons Detection," National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995), calls for the transfer of military technology to domestic police organizations to better fight "crime." Previously, direct "transfers" of this sort were made only to friendly foreign governments. The Clinton directive enhanced and formalized direct militarization of domestic police forces.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39680373/The-Militarization-of-the-Police-by-Frank-Morales
Currently, Title XIV of an earlier NDAA in 2007 entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders." In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" and surveillance technology to local militarized (politicized) police units.
* In 1993, the US Army and Marine Corps publish Domestic Support Operations Field Manual 100-19.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/fm100_19.pdf
* In 1994, the Department of Defense issued Directive 3025.12, Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS) that details the rationale and means ("tactics, techniques and procedures") for suppressing dissent. It states that, "the President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal Government and the Department of Defense for civil disturbances are important, do to the potential severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the population."
* In 1995, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an key elite "policymaker" headquartered in New York City, set up an "Independent Task Force on Nonlethal Weapons (NLW)" in order "to assess the current status of non-lethal weapons development and availability within the Department of Defense, in light of their potential to support U.S. military operations and foreign policy," not to mention the suppression of dissent at home. The 16 member Task Force, which published its' findings in 1999, was chaired by IBM executive Richard L. Garwin, CFR "Senior Fellow for Science and Technology." Other members of the Task Force included CFR "military fellow" David Jones, United States Navy, Commander, Edward N. Luttwak, member, "National Security Study Group administered by the Department of Defense," Edward C. Meyer, USA (Ret.), Chair of Mitretek Systems, formerly Chief of Staff, US Army, and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Janet and Christopher Morris, President/Vice President, M2 Technologies, Inc, members US Global Strategy Council.
The Director of the CFR task force on non-lethal "technologies" was W. Montaque Winfield, former Executive Officer to the Commander of the "Stabilization Force" stationed in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. Also a 1998-9 CFR "military fellow," Brigadier General Winfield, some of you might recall, was the deputy director for operations (DDO) in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, who according to the 9/11 Commission, left his post that very morning to attend a "pre-scheduled meeting" and allowed a colleague who had only recently qualified to take over his position, to stand in for him. He didn't return to his post until after the terrorist attacks had ended. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=montague_winfield
The CFR had issued an earlier report on the subject of "non-lethal" weapons in 1995, and stated in the 1999 report that they had regrettably "found that the DoD has made only limited progress developing and deploying nonlethal weapons since 1995." The CFR, offering a bit of a tongue lashing to it's hired generals, considered the "shortfall" the result of a "continued lack of appreciation for NLW among civilian and military policymakers." Taking a firm line, the CFR report recommends that, "senior civilian and military leaders should make NLW development a priority." After all, "nonlethal weapons could give policymakers a more potent weapon than economic sanctions." In fact, "used alone", the report notes, "NLW could penalize civilian economies without high civilian casualties." Looking for something between "diplomatic table thumping and outright annihilation," the armchair corporate warriors at the CRR continued to pound away at the need for accelerated "non-lethal" R and D.
http://revoltrevolt.org/demilitarizethepolice/nonlethal.html
* Subsequently, on July 9, 1996, the Department of Defense complied, issuing Directive 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons. The Directive established Department of Defense policies and responsibilities for the development and employment of so-called "non-lethal weapons," designating the Commandant of the Marine Corps as Executive Agent for the Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program. On July 1, 1997, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate was established to support the Executive Agent for Non-Lethal Weapons in the day-to-day management of the Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program putting the "best and the brightest" at work in designing soft-kill means (including neuro-weapons) of "crowd dispersal" and "social control" set within a strategy of so-called "low-intensity warfare" and "counter-insurgency."
http://jnlwp.defense.gov/pdf/2011%20Public%20%20Release%20%20NLW%20Reference%20Book%20V1.pdf
http://www.zcommunications.org/electromagnetic-weapons-by-frank-morales
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-militarization-neuroscience
Recently, this past May 17, 2012 the DoD issued Instruction 3200.19. Entitled "Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Human Effects Characterization," the "instruction" "establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for a human effects characterization process in support of the development of NLW, non lethal technology and NLW systems." It also establishes a "Human Effects Review Board," which "scientifically" evaluates and quantifies levels of pain, calculating the most desirable "effects" in regard to the use of non-lethal force against non-combatants and protesters. In this regard, they receive a lot of assistance from their friends and associates in academia.
http://cryptome.org/dodi/dodi-3200-19.pdf
In 1997 Penn State University established the Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies. The Institute is "dedicated to providing a base of multidisciplinary knowledge and technology that supports development and responsible application of non-lethal options for both military and civilian law enforcement. " The Institute is administered by Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory (ARL), under the direction and support of the University's Office of the Vice President for Research. http://nldt2.arl.psu.edu/
Its Human Effects Advisory Panel sponsored a conference in September 2000, whose purpose was "to assess crowd behavior and the potential for crowd control … a leading core capability sought by the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Program." Their 2001 report was entitled, "Crowd Behavior, Crowd Control, and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons."
http://nldt2.arl.psu.edu/documents/crowd_control_report.pdf
Meanwhile, the University of New Hampshire's Non-Lethal Technology Innovation Center (NTIC) was created by a grant from the DoD's Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate about the same time "to effect the next generation of NL capabilities by identifying and promoting the development of innovative concepts, materials and technologies within the academic community." Its "Society of Force Effectiveness, Analysis and Techniques" (FEAT) was "established to engage primary source scientists to share results and analyses from studies of applied force, whether physical, psychological, or emotional. The Society's scope of interests includes the impact of non-lethal or less lethal force intervention on sustained attention; performance degradation due to fatigue or intentional distraction; compliance; vigilance; and stress resilience." The Society, given its specific intent on affecting "motivational behavior," is keen on identifying "disciplines that support the development of tools of behavioral modification through force (e.g., kinetic and electromagnetic energies, psychological operations)."
http://www.unh.edu/ntic/
* In August of 2001, the Pentagon issued Field Manual 3-19.40, Internment and Resettlement Operations. Explicating the role of military police engaged in law enforcement, including at the point of domestic detention activities set within the context of "emergency" support, the extensive manual covers detention policies and methodologies and the use of non-lethal weapons. Chapter 10, Sections 49-66 detail the nature of "emergency services" within the "continental United States," explaining that "MP (military police) units assisting ES (emergency service) operations in CONUS involve DoD-sponsored military programs that support the people and the government at all levels within the US and its territories." Classified as "domestic support," the manual states that, "federal armed forces can be employed when …" in the face of a declared "emergency," "state and local authorities do not take appropriate action."
In that instance, FEMA would serve as "the single POC within the government." With a nod to the Posse Comitatus Act the document goes on to state that, "the MP support to ES in CONUS varies significantly from other I/R (internment/resettlement) operations. The basic difference is that local and state governments and the federal government and its agencies have a greater impact and role in supporting and meeting the needs in an affected community." "If tasked to set up and operate an I/R facility, the MP commander retains control of military forces under his command," and can operate "in conjunction with local, state and federal law enforcement officials."
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/a22.pdf
* September 11 provided the elite Project for a New American Century and their associates with the "new Pearl Harbor" they sought, as set forth in Rebuilding America's Defenses (pg.51), a major consequence of which was the September 18, 2001 passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or AUMF.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
The Pentagon can invade, occupy and destroy at will, pre-emptively (with little or no reason), anyone, anywhere in the world
This singular, presumably legal rationale for much of what we now endure, the AUMF substantiates the notion that the Pentagon can invade, occupy and destroy at will, pre-emptively (with little or no reason), anyone, anywhere in the world, any time it chooses. In addition, apparently as we now see, the AUMF gives the Pentagon and it's covetous corporate directors justification for the military takeover of America itself and the detention of its people. Thus, the AUMF is cited by the peddlers of Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012.
The modern "military tribunal" structure, which is a major piece of the detention/repression apparatus, came into formal existence as a consequence of the 2002 Department of Defense Military Commission Order No.1, issued on March 21, 2002 by former president (war criminal) George W. Bush.
http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf
The entire military commission/tribunal structure is a work in progress, or more precisely, a dynamic and strategic power play on the part of the rulers set in motion following 9/11; a "might makes right" gambit undertaken by the militarist directors in the smoke of 9/11. Like the so-called Patriot Act, it was forced down the throats of a submissive, clueless public, sufficiently softened by means of prime time terror, fear and panic. Taking two steps forward and one step back, the militarists act first and then rationalize (or more precisely have their employees in the Congress) baptize the move after the fact. Where do presidents like Dubya, and now Obama get the authority to issue such blanket, unilateral decrees, totalitarian "executive orders," such as Obama's "National Defense Preparedness Order" of this year, which would force us to work for the Pentagon? The answer: No where! They have no authority! Particularly to set up parallel systems of jurisprudence as a means of by-passing Constitutional protections. In historical fact, this approach has a parallel in earlier maneuvers of another former "executive," Adolph Hitler. (see Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, Ingo Muller, Harvard, 1991)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
Concurrent with the round-up of over a thousand people following the September 11 attack, many of whom are still being held, many in solitary confinement, with no charges being filed, President Bush signed in November 2001 an order, establishing military "tribunals" for those non-citizens, accused, anywhere, of "terrorist related crimes." And now, with the NDAA, citizens might soon face the same fate. Just imagine some smug and starchy government lawyer arguing that "the right to equal protection," a fundamental principle of both U.S. and international law, demands that Americans be detained too!
At the time (2001), the National Legal Aid & Defender Association stated that the Bush promulgated "military order" violated the constitutional separation of powers:
"It has not been authorized by the Congress and is outside the President's constitutional powers ... the order strips away a variety of checks and balances on governmental power and the reliability and integrity of criminal judgments... undermines the rule of law worldwide, and invites reciprocal treatment of US nationals by hostile nations utilizing secret trials, a single entity as prosecutor, judge and jury, no judicial review and summary executions."
More recently, in October 2009, the U.S. Congress passed and Obama dutifully signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (2009 MCA), which remains in effect today, legalizing further, if you will, the naked power grab by the executive in behalf of the elite. Since then the "Office of Military Commissions" has been set up as a public relations/propaganda front for the dictatorship. It promises to "provide fair and transparent trials of those persons subject to trial by Military Commissions while protecting national security interests." Kind of like Fox's "fair and balanced" news reporting. http://www.mc.mil/
Finally, we should recall that the NDAA of past years, aside from providing the funding of vast sums for illegal and immoral wars, torture and assassination, has been the site of various embedded measures designed to further limit our democratic rights of free expression and assembly, which is the foundation of effective and meaningful dissent. One such measure dates back to 2007, to the then so-called John Warner NDAA, named after militarism's best friend and sponsor of the iconic AUMF.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by George Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony. It allowed the President to declare a "public emergency" and subsequently station troops anywhere in America, seizing control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." Well, fortunately, a massive protest ensued and the sections of the law that allowed for such were eventually repealed in the midst of which Senator Pat Leahy commented that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law." Preparing to order the military onto the streets of America, the presumption is that some form of martial law would be in evidence. Note that the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
The concept of martial rule, as distinct from martial law, is not written, and therefore is an eminently more workable arrangement for "law enforcement forces." That's because, as US Army Field Manual 19-15 points out, "martial rule is based on public necessity. Public necessity in this sense means public safety." According to the manual (cited above), updated in 2005, U.S. state authorities "may take such action within their own jurisdictions." And yet, "whether or not martial rule has been proclaimed, commanders must weigh each proposed action against the threat to public order and safety. If the need for martial rule arises, the military commander at the scene must so inform the Army Chief of Staff and await instructions. If martial rule is imposed, the civilian population must be informed of the restrictions and rules of conduct that the military can enforce."
Now, respecting the power of free speech, the manual suggests that, "during a civil disturbance, it may be advisable to prevent people from assembling. Civil law can make it unlawful for people to meet to plan an act of violence, rioting, or civil disturbance. Prohibitions on assembly may forbid gatherings at any place and time." And don't forget, "making hostile or inflammatory speeches advocating the overthrow of the lawful government and threats against public officials, if it endangered public safety, could violate such law."
Further, during civil disturbance operations, "authorities must be prepared to detain large numbers of people," forcing them into existing, though expanded "detention facilities." Cautioning that, "if there are more detainees than civil detention facilities can handle, civil authorities may ask the control forces to set up and operate temporary facilities." Pending the approval of the Army Chief of Staff, the military can detain and jail citizens en masse. "The temporary facilities are set up on the nearest military installation or on suitable property under federal control." These "temporary facilities" are "supervised and controlled by MP officers and NCOs trained and experienced in Army correctional operations. Guards and support personnel under direct supervision and control of MP officers and NCOs need not be trained or experienced in Army correctional operations. But they must be specifically instructed and closely supervised in the proper use of force."
According to the Army, the detention facilities are situated near to the "disturbance area," but far enough away "not to be endangered by riotous acts." Given the large numbers of potential detainees, the logistics (holding, searching, processing areas) of such an undertaking, new construction of such facilities "may be needed to provide the segregation for ensuring effective control and administration." It must be designed and "organized for a smooth flow of traffic," while a medical "treatment area" would be utilized as a "separate holding area for injured detainees." After a "detainee is logged in and searched," "a file is initiated," and a "case number" identifies the prisoner. In addition, "facility personnel also may use hospital ID tags. Using indelible ink, they write the case number and attach the tag to the detainees wrist. Different colors may be used to identify different offender classifications "
Finally, if and when it should occur, "release procedures must be coordinated with civil authorities and appropriate legal counsel." If the "detainee" should produce a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court, thereby demanding ones day in court, the Army will "respectfully reply that the prisoner is being held by authority of the United States."
There is no question that the militarized police state, in all its myriad permutations has arrived. In fact, the militarizing of American cities and society as a whole proceeds apace in lock step (Cities Under Seige: The New Military Urbanism, Stephen Graham, 2010) with the racist, anti-immigrant "defense" of the borders, a veritable cash cow for military contractors, booming. The cities, the borders, so how bout the skies? Well, as this is being written, the latest 2013 NDAA discussions include a Senate Armed Services Committee call to allow drones to operate "freely and routinely" in America!
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_cr/sasc-uas.html
http://nacla.org/blog/2012/6/7/bringing-battlefield-border-wild-world-border-security-and-boundary-building-arizona
Meanwhile, the GAO has just issued a report to Congress entitled "DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the Selective Service System" which calls for an evaluation of Pentagon "manpower needs for the Selective Service System in light of current national security plans." Such an evaluation would, the report notes, "better position Congress to make an informed decision about the necessity of the Selective Service System or any other alternatives that might substitute for it."
http://cryptome.org/2012/06/gao-12-623.pdf
Yes indeed, the water is boiling. Not to mix metaphors, but it's time to jump out of the frying pan and hopefully not into the fire, which I take to mean that we must confront and deconstruct, in a non-violent way, the increasing potential for far more violence and suppression of our basic freedoms. The handing over of our resources, lives, fortune and reputation to a clique of thieves and murderers dressed up as presidents, congress people and corporate military executives and underlings is to foster our continued enslavement to the perpetrators of injustice and genocide, here and broad, inequality and greed, here and abroad, and signals the political suicide for our republic. We have got to act to stop the police state and reassert the values of community, justice and equality in the councils of governance. And to do so we must dis-empower the militarists.
One thing we can do right now is to initiate organizing campaigns in neighborhoods and communities across the country aimed at the passing of Posse Comitatus-like legislation on the local and state level, encouraging dialogue on the de-militarization of our communities, and raising the human right to be free of the violation inherent in all forms of militarism. By removing all aspects of militarism from domestic policing, lock, stock and barrel, we can expand the terrain of dissent and begin to reclaim our country back from the economic vultures and parasites and their violent mercenaries who are killing this country and the world. But first we must criminalize, like the Posse Comitatus Act does, all military involvement in law enforcement.
Communities must organize to de-militarize their police
Communities must organize to de-militarize their police. By analyzing police budgets, cutting the "special ops" training and funding and weapons transfers that fuel the militarization of law enforcement, we will most certainly decrease the level of police violence directed against the citizenry, and bridge issues and communities concerned with the epidemic of racist "police brutality" and the burgeoning of militarized police forces, veritable occupation armies in communities of color across America.
Along with criminalizing the militarization of local police we must work to criminalize racial profiling on the part of the police, a practice (indoctrinated in soldiers) that provides naked justification for "stop and frisk" harassment and the murdering of young black men. Make killer cops liable for these murders, stripped of the "sovereign immunity" that is their 007 license to kill. Ditto for "stand your ground" or more-arms-for-the-white-right laws, which along with the high rates of gun ownership in certain demographic regions of the country, create the ominous potential for "deputized" armed posses, who along with state sponsored "defense forces" on a mission to presumably protect the "homeland" promise only more violence and repression. Disarm and expose them, expose the fraud of a hyped-up "law enforcement" establishment willing to break any laws to please the master, the financiers, the power brokers who manipulate them for gain, who are really only pawns in their game.
It is irrational and a violation of the civil and human rights of the citizenry to perpetuate the arming of militarized police trained to suppress constitutionally insured rights to free speech and assembly. They are supposed to defend the Constitution, not "detain" those who do! They are supposed to defend the civil rights of the people, not "partner" with the CIA and FBI and spy on activists and Muslim communities, entrapping their youth, victims of the racist charade called "the war on terror." (Associated Press, "Post-9/11, NYPD targets ethnic communities, partners with CIA," 8/24/11)
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1009r.pdf
They are supposed to defend the right to protest, not brutalize those who do, peacefully, as in the most recent police crack-down on the Occupy movement. (New York Times, "When the Police Go Military" 12/3/11). They are supposed to be sensitive to the civil and human rights of all the people, respect the cultural diversity of their environment, "serve and protect," not to be trained in "quick shoot reflex" by outfits such as the Firearms Training Systems which trains both the NYPD and the US marines!
Police departments are public institutions subject to the will of local governments, to the will of the public, the people. But only if we act! Where and under what circumstances the police receive their training, are granted "immunity" and what armaments they possess, (paid for by public funds) and what sort of institutional relationships with US military and intelligence agencies (which public documents would make evident) are they engaged in …
These are the kinds of questions and avenues of approach common throughout history in the struggle of citizens against police/military dictatorships. And despite the recent May 17, 2012 issuance of the "DoD Civil Liberties Program," which defines civil liberties as "fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution of the United States," except when "operational requirements" of "an authorized law enforcement, intelligence collection, or counterintelligence activity" dictate otherwise; despite the tightening noose, in the end we must rely on the law, on "the rule of law," specifically, on the ability (necessity) of reasonable people of good will acquiring sufficient power to draft new and enforceable laws, laws which promote justice, healing, growth, life and peace. And to make them stick!
We claim and hope to be a society of laws, by the people, for all the people. But we are not. Never have been. Nonetheless, we are capable of evolving, of igniting a revolution of values in this country and becoming the land we all aspire to "with justice and freedom for all." But in order to get there, we will have to overcome the coup of 2012.
Starving Greeks Queue for Food Handouts Amid Economic Crisis
Congratulations you pathetic, coward bastards - this is what you voted for: Greece is now the laughing stock of the world, cowering on your knees before a female German Nazi - Greeks no different from Americans and will now pay for their folly just as they have, having only succeeded in delaying the inevitable
Thousands of starving Greeks have queued for free food handouts as the country continues to grapple with a falling economy.
Greek children will now pay for the cowardice of their parents
This comes as the recession-bound country is hit hard by rising unemployment and crippling austerity measures.
Native Greeks, immigrants, the elderly and children stood in a queue on Wednesday to receive vegetable handout from a coalition of farmers in Athens.
"We won't solve any feeding problems, but we're starting to show solidarity, a display of Greek solidarity that shows we're united in these tough times," Euronews quoted one charity worker as saying on Wednesday.
This is while earlier in the day, leader of the socialist Pasok party Evangelos Venizelos announced that a deal has been clinched for a coalition government in Greece in a bid to tackle the country's financial crisis.
So will the elderly, poor, homeless, disabled
Also on Wednesday Antonis Samaras, the country's new prime minister, said that he will ask for the new government to be formed on Thursday and pledged to "work hard" to "give hope" to Greeks.
Greece is at the epicenter of the eurozone debt crisis and is experiencing its fifth year of recession because of the government-introduced harsh austerity measures, which have left about half-a-million people without a job over the past years.
One in every five Greek workers is currently unemployed, banks are in a shaky position, and pensions and salaries have been slashed by up to 40 percent.
Greek youths have also been badly affected and more than half of them are unemployed.
There are worries that more delays in resolving the eurozone debt crisis, which began in Greece in late 2009 and infected Italy, Spain and France last year, can push not only Europe, but also much of the rest of the developed world back into recession.
MR/JR /AZ
When Will We [U.S.] Attack Syria?
Obama, Merkel and the rest of the corporate banking criminals caught a break in the form of the coward Greek people, gaining some time until their exposure for draining The People's money from their national treasuries now that their fake "austerity" has failed, however attacking Iran or Syria has always been a stop-gap measure in the event they have to use it to declare Martial Law in America, reinstate the draft, close the borders to Americans attempting to flee - and now they are preparing to use it
By Representative Ron Paul*
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.
Coward Americans doom world to endless war by doing nothing
This past week, however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.
There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.
Obama will most likely "sacrifice" a U.S. carrier like Lyndon Johnson did the USS Liberty to enrage Americans into another illegal war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of naval personnel at the hands of Israel or Iran
We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife — now characterized as a civil war — would likely be nonexistent.
CIA owned and operated "mainstream media" shill for war
Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control, poses a serious constitutional question: from where does a president get such authority?
Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored.
It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the president himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.
Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under a U.N. resolution and without congressional approval.
The fate of THOUSANDS of American servicemen and women should Obama get his next illegal "war;" U.S. parents, families have yet to take personal responsibility for the deaths of their loved ones because they were too cowardly to say no to Bush/Obama, cannot live with themselves if they have to face up to the fact that their fathers, sons, brothers, sisters, mothers died for nothing and still beat war drums in a pathetic attempt to bullshit themselves and the world that their sacrifice was "worth it"
And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivate the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russians have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
Multiply these caskets by tens of thousands if Obama gets his next illegal war, and the real casualty numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan have still not been exposed
We are hypocritical when we condemn Russians for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance, and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neocons openly admit.
Controlling Iranian oil, just as we have done in Saudi Arabia and are attempting to do in Iraq, is the real goal of the neoconservatives who have been in charge of our foreign policy for the past couple of decades.
War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.
This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.
It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.
One fine day - and probably sooner rather than later - the rest of the civilized world will decide that this criminally insane piece of shit must be stopped once and for all before he destroys the planet, just as the Allies did with Hitler - regardless of the cost
Besides, we're broke, we can't afford it, and worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden, whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
It's time to bring our troops home and establish a noninterventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity.
The future of what was once "Free America:;" endless illegal wars, an insane dictator "for life"
This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting — directly or indirectly — any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
* The 5th Estate DOES NOT support Ron Paul, or any other "politician."
Food Stamp Vote In Senate Blocks Bid To Restore $4...
THE COUP OF 2012: Encroachment Upon Basic Freedoms...
Starving Greeks Queue for Food Handouts Amid Econo...


text:
ThunderStrike
Developer Live Studios
Publisher Millennium Software
Thunderstrike is an action-shooter game that combines impressive 3D graphics with some superb shooting gameplay. The game was released only for the 16bit Commodore Amiga, Atari ST and PC (MS-DOS) home computers by Millenium Software in 1991.
You participate on a TV show (!) in which you have to defend your home from a whole host of enemy robotic forces. This intergalactic TV program, watched by billions of entities, is produced by a company named Ground Defense and combines the politics the networks wanted to advertise along with hardware to show military might. The deadly show takes place in an arena where combat vehicles and are battling and certain ships leave energy pods, turbo boosters and shield enhancements when destroyed. Those items can be collected by simply flying over them. As it's a TV show, the better you perform and the more dramatic your performance is, determines marks of what type of ship you get on the next round! There are several ground installations as well and the computer controlled drones are attacking in hordes. Some of the ground installations are on your side, so you need to protect them while others are hostile, so they must be destroyed. You may select which craft suits you the most at the beginning of the game and each of those include sophisticated instruments like a radar that spots the attacking drones or the installations in differently colored dots. Do not forget to collect the pods dropped when drones are destroyed as they can prove useful during your unforgiving combats.
ThunderStrike includes 50 levels in total, split across five different planets. The controls may seem a bit awkward but you'll soon get the hang of them and the option screen allows you to set your mouse's sensitivity based on your personal preferences. So, take your time and you might just win the supreme accolade as the "Defender of the Ground"!
The Atari ST version has nice and fast moving 3D environments (a bit faster than the Amiga version) and 16 simultaneous colors. The combat vehicles and flying stuff move without any frame rate issues and each "arena" offers some nice details although there isn't too much variety in the landscapes. Still look colorful and satisfactory.
The sound is adequate with a bunch of combat sound effects (but not sampled on the ST) that seem to work well with the game.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
HomeGermany Recognizes Algerian Jews As Holocaust Survivors
Germany Recognizes Algerian Jews As Holocaust Survivors
Debra Nussbaum CohenFebruary 5, 2018Image by United States Holocaust M...
Image by United States Holocaust M...
NEW YORK (JTA) — Close to 80 years after being persecuted by the Nazi-allied Vichy French government, some 25,000 elderly Algerian Jews are for the first time being recognized as Holocaust survivors by the German government.
Algerian Jews had their French citizenship stripped by the Vichy government, which then ruled the area, in 1940. Nuremberg-like laws banned Jews from working as doctors, lawyers, teachers and in government. Children were kicked out of French schools.
On Tuesday, 78 years after they endured suffering that left families penniless and starving, and pariahs in their own country, the Conference on Material Claims Against Germany will begin taking their applications for recognition as survivors, making each eligible for a one-time "hardship grant" and additional services like food vouchers and in-home care.
Each survivor approved will receive a hardship grant of 2,556 euros, the equivalent of roughly $3,100. The euro figure is the equivalent of 5,000 deutschmarks, a sum the Claims Conference negotiated with the German government in 1980. The money will be distributed beginning in July.
The youngest Algerian survivors, born in 1942, would today be 76 years old. Most, however, are in their 80s and 90s, Schneider said. As important as the money is, even more valuable is acknowledgment of their suffering, Schneider told JTA. "They weren't murdered but there were lots of deprivations" under the anti-Semitic Vichy laws.
"There weren't extermination camps in Algeria but a person's childhood was turned upside down because of this persecution targeting Jews. It becomes a huge part of a person's identity. The experience during the war for so many people defines them, is the seminal experience of their lives. All these decades it's never been acknowledged," said Greg Schneider, executive vice president of the Conference on Material Claims Against Germany.
Debra Nussbaum Cohen
Debra Nussbaum Cohen is an award-winning journalist who covers philanthropy, religion, gender and other contemporary issues. Her work has been published in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and New York magazine, among many other publications. She authored the book "Celebrating Your New Jewish Daughter: Creating Jewish Ways to Welcome Baby Girls into the Covenant."


text:
Home / Society / Never let a good crisis go to waste
Never let a good crisis go to waste
June 24, 2017	Society 232 Views
As the full horror of the Grenfell fire became apparent, millions of ordinary Britons experienced shock, sorrow and an outpouring of sympathy. Many people in the immediate area rushed to volunteer – opening up community facilities and distributing food and clothing. Others reached for their wallets to donate the cash that was essential to meeting the immediate needs of survivors who had fled the stricken building without stopping to look for cash, cards or essential documents.
Shock turned into anger in the days after the fire. The Prime Minister's apparent lack of humanity toward the victims seemed to sum up an out of touch austerity government that has spent the last seven years attacking Britain's poor. The local Tory council's failure to honour its legal duties to the victims of the fire had all of the hallmarks of a body that had long since sold its soul to London's luxury property developers. Even as government ministers mouthed the predictable platitudes in praise of the emergency services, nurses, fire fighters and police officers spoke about the additional risks that government cuts had created.
As the public mood hardened, however, a small band of cynical and possibly sociopathic property developers were rubbing their hands together with glee. Echoing the words attributed to Winston Churchill, they asked; "why let a good crisis go to waste?" After all, the property speculators have been trying to get their hands on the prime real estate land beneath Grenfell tower and its neighbouring properties for decades. Clearly Grenfell itself is going to be demolished. But the crisis also opens up the means to evict the residents and demolish blocks of social housing across London and beyond.
It fell to Iain Duncan Smith – his hands still dripping with the blood of a thousand disabled benefit claimants – to give political voice to the interests of the property speculators. Speaking immediately after the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Grenfell parliamentary debate on Thursday, Smith's cynical question was:
"I ask the Prime Minister to add one further remit to the public inquiry: to look at whether the whole process of retrofitting old tower blocks is viable at all and at whether there is a better way to house and support tenants in these areas without the use of the many incredibly badly designed and very faulty tower blocks. Will she ask the public inquiry to look carefully at whether it is feasible to bring some of the blocks down and provide more family friendly housing?"
Notice that Smith does not say who such "family friendly housing" would be for. Obviously not the people displaced from the towers that are demolished – that would require modern towers to be erected in their place. What Smith is talking about is the ongoing process of social cleansing of central London that has seen the working class dispersed to the outer suburbs and even to other UK towns and cities. This was entirely predictable. In the aftermath of the fire we pointed out that:
"It doesn't take a genius to realise that Grenfell tower is not going to be refurbished. Nor does one have to be particularly bright to understand that once the fallout from the tragedy has dissipated and the tower demolished, the local council is going to sell the land to a private developer to put up even more high-end property. If they are particularly cynical, they may even use the disaster as an excuse to tear down the neighbouring towers. After all, if the public inquiry recommends expensive retrofitting of safety systems, and if government incorporates these into regulations or legislation, it will be far cheaper to rehouse people. The council may even argue that the income they receive from the sale of the land can be used to rehouse the residents – but that rehousing will not be in Kensington & Chelsea, and may not even be in London."
That it should fall to Iain Duncan Smith to put these sentiments onto the political agenda is unsurprising. His cruelty and incompetence during his time as Work and Pensions Secretary brought about the premature deaths of thousands of sick and disabled people, while forcing hundreds of thousands of Britain's poorest households to turn to foodbanks to stay alive. Even more worryingly, though, is the fact that the Prime Minister chose not to reply to the question at all. If she had refuted Duncan Smith's question, this would have taken the issue off the table. If, on the other hand she had accepted it, this would demonstrate that Duncan Smith's thinking was in line with her own. By ducking the question, she leaves it on the table without having to take responsibility for it… which may explain why Duncan Smith's was the first question from the floor.
In the end at least some of the survivors of the Grenfell fire will be rehoused in better conditions in or close to their community – it would be political suicide for the government to do anything else. But the residents of similar towers across London and the wider UK can expect harsher treatment. Mr Duncan Smith and his property developing chums are coming for them, and they are not seen as victims. As their towers are pulled down and their communities dispersed to the four winds to make way for new developments, public sympathy will wane. After all, they are being saved from a future disaster… and it will be very difficult to defend against that.
Previous Science 'v' Economics criticisms work both ways
Next Burning £50 notes in front of the poor
In the more conspiratorial corners of the Internet, the "Great Reset" is a sinister public …


text:
EZ Rock Golden
EZ Rock Kitimat
EZ Rock Kootenays
EZ Rock Nelson
EZ Rock Osoyoos
EZ Rock Penticton
EZ Rock Prince Rupert
EZ Rock Revelstoke
EZ Rock Salmon Arm
EZ Rock Summerland
EZ Rock Terrace
Logo EZ Rock terrace
Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP hosts discussion on white supremacist groups in Canada
Joshua Azizi
Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Taylor Bachrach held an online discussion with Hamilton Centre MP Matthew Green last Friday to chat about combatting white nationalist hate groups operating in Canada.
Bachrach explained that one of the reasons he held the discussion was to help break down the events that happened last week at the US capitol.
"I would say in this region, there's a fair bit of confusion and a need to unpack these things and to understand the meaning of the symbols, and -- I know you and I had a conversation about the confederate flags that we're flown in my community-"
"That's right."
"-and to help people understand the connections between these things and the harm that's being done."
Some topics they discussed include recent white nationalist activity in Canada, online disinformation, extremists' use of social media, the historical roots of racism in Canada and Green's own experiences with racism.
Bachrach and Green, who are both NDP MPs, also discussed their party's recent push for the government to recognize the Proud Boys, a white nationalist group, as a terrorist organization.
"If I were to show up to the local Caribbean association and there was a note on the door or if it was burned to the ground, or a mosque or a synagogue or any identifiable group, that is in and of its very self a message to the community that their lives are at danger, said Green.
"That's what white supremacist organizing does, and so they should be deemed as terrorist organizations and they should be completely outlawed in this country."
"Are we making progress on that front?," asked Bachrach.
"No. We have governments who want to play lip service to the aesthetics of taking on these big critical issues, they want to play identity politics without actually committing to justice."
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said on Sunday that the federal government was considering designating the Proud Boys as a terrorist group.
Ambulances are being used to transfer deceased people in Northwest B.C.
Another COVID exposure for Uplands Elementary School
Group element EZrock Terrace footer
Contact Information EZ Rock Terrace
4625 Lazelle Avenue Terrace BC V8G 1S4
Studio Line (250) 638-0181 or 1-888-556-8742
News (250) 638-6325
Reception Desk (250) 635-6316
Sales (250) 635-6316 #327


text:
Benefits of Modest Weight Loss
Modest Weight Loss Can Help Combat Obesity
Relatively modest weight loss can have significant health benefits in tackling overweight and obesity, the Australian Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Kay Patterson, said today.
She announced new draft guidelines for doctors in the fight against Australia's obesity epidemic.
The draft clinical practice guidelines for weight control and obesity have been developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council and are now open for public comment.
The number of people who are overweight or obese – both adults and children – has reached epidemic proportions throughout the western world. In Australia alone in 1999-2000, an estimated 67 per cent of adult males, 52 per cent of adult females were classified as overweight or obese.
Senator Patterson said: "People's expectations of weight loss are often unrealistic, making successful treatment more difficult.
"Even a modest loss of 5-10% of starting weight can result in significant health benefits.
"That benefit is probably greater than people realise. If you lose 10% of your weight that is a good thing. It is not as if you are halfway to a goal you will never achieve – it is a success and can deliver sustainable health benefits."
The guidelines say that low fat eating plans resulting in a daily energy reduction of 2-4 megajoules a day, combined with increased physical activity, appear to be the most effective for long-term weight loss.
A regular pattern of physical activity is one of the key factors involved in maintaining weight loss.
Senator Patterson said: "At first glance, the answers probably seem simple, eat less and move more, but in reality this is one of the most complex and difficult medical problems to deal with in modern disease management.
"Doctors and health professionals are at the front line, with current statistics showing that more than 50 per cent of patients visiting their general practitioner, likely to have overweight or obesity as a key symptom, if not the primary cause of disease."
Not just adults are at risk – the prevalence of obesity and overweight in children and adolescents has doubled in the past 15 years, with between 20 and 25 per cent of children and adolescents now estimated to be overweight or obese.
Senator Patterson said: "There is much misleading, and sometimes confusing, information to be found in both public and scientific literature, and it is for these reasons that we need guidelines for doctors and health professionals.
"These are the first guidelines for weight control and obesity management ever issued in Australia and they provide detailed evidence-based guidance for doctors and health professionals in assessing and managing overweight and obesity."
It is expected that the draft guidelines will generate a great amount of interest from individuals, organisations and clinicians. Submissions will be accepted up until 17 January.
Senator Patterson said: "These guidelines highlight important health concerns associated with overweight and obesity and, through the provision of information to doctors for at-risk groups, aim to improve the health of people with conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers."


text:
← More Artistic Oppression
The Whining Begins →
Who Were the Victims?
Posted on January 1, 2008 by Greg Hlatky
Details about the horrific Seattle killings have emerged:
Court documents said McEnroe, a store clerk, and Anderson, who is unemployed, told detectives they armed themselves on Christmas Eve and went to her parents' home near Carnation, about 25 miles east of Seattle. There, they confronted Anderson's parents, Wayne Anderson, 60, and Judy Anderson, 61, in their living room.
Michele Anderson told detectives her brother, a carpenter, owed her money she had loaned to him years earlier, and that she was upset with her parents because they did not take her side, documents say. She also said her parents were pressuring her to start paying rent for staying on their property, where she lived in a trailer with McEnroe.
"Michelle stated that she was tired of everybody stepping on her," the court papers say. "She stated that she was upset with her parents and her brother and that if the problems did not get resolved on Dec. 24, then her intent was definitely to kill everybody."
Satterberg said Michele Anderson fired once at her father's head but missed. McEnroe stepped in, leveled his gun and fatally shot Wayne Anderson in the head, documents said.
Judy Anderson heard the shots and ran from the back room where she had been wrapping gifts. She was shot by McEnroe, who apologized to her before shooting her again, this time in the head, the court documents said.
Satterberg said that the two dragged the bodies to a shed behind the house, used towels and carpets to sop up blood stains and awaited the arrival of Anderson's brother, Scott. He was due for a Christmas Eve visit with his wife, Erica, and children Olivia, 6, and Nathan, 3.
Her brother and sister-in-law put up a brave struggle, according to the documents. Scott Anderson charged her when she pulled out the gun, and was shot up to four times, records say
Michele then shot Erica Anderson twice, but she was able to crawl over the back of a couch to call 911, authorities said. McEnroe tolddetectives he tore the phone from Erica's hands and destroyed it.
Huddling with her children, Erica Anderson pleaded with McEnroe not to shoot her, saying: "You don't have to do this."
"Yes, we do," McEnroe was quoted as replying in the affidavit. He fired at her head, authorities said.
Satterberg said that McEnroe apologized to both of the children before he shot 6-year-old Olivia. He then turned to 3-year-old Nathan, who had picked up the batteries from the cordless phone his mother had used in her futile attempt to call for help, court documents said.
McEnroe than fired one last bullet through Nathan's head, according to the affidavit. When asked why he shot Erica, Olivia and Nathan, McEnroe told detectives three times: "I didn't want them to turn us in."
Three generations wiped out. The last and youngest, a toddler bewildered at the slaughter surrounding him, had his brains blown out to ensure his silence.
Because we're an advanced society, we no longer can grasp the concept of Evil in others:
[E]ven as they filed aggravated first-degree murder charges against McEnroe and Michele Anderson, prosecutors could not say what might have driven the couple in the violent killing spree.
"In the end, what motive could you find that would make sense of the senseless slaying of the Anderson family?" King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said in announcing the charges.
McEnroe and Anderson will now go on trial. They will be represented by counsel, of course, and well they should. If they have none or if they can't afford it, it will be provided for them, which is right and proper. The Law will be their tender and will not allow them to jeopardize their rights, which is only just.
If convicted on the six counts of aggravated first-degree murder, McEnroe and Anderson could face death sentences. If so, there will no doubt be automatic appeals, which there should be. These appeals will be lengthy; we will want the State to be careful about taking such an awesome step. During this time, bien pensants will continue to call the death penalty barbaric; perhaps they're right.
The alternative sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole. In that case, McEnroe and Anderson will spend years and years behind bars. During this time, our sensibilities may change; the same bien pensants are already saying that imprisonment for life is cruel and unusual punishment (see also here).
Because we can't acknowledge that anyone (except, perhaps, Bush and Cheney) are evil, that it must have been their environment or upbringing, slowly and inexorably the perpetrators will become the victims. Why, if sufficiently notorious, they could even have streets named after them and become honorary citizens in suitably progressive countries that look down their noses at us barbaric Americans.
Forgotten, of course, will be those they murdered. We won't even remember their names, the memory of which will be as decayed as their bodies. News reports will focus on poor McEnroe and Anderson and the miseries of death row or a lifetime cell, saying in a graf much farther down that they "killed six people in a Christmas Eve spree."
In being so solicitous of the murderers, the true victims will die a second time. And we will have killed them.