Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
10 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Here We, The People, Are

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to None 12/15/11

Become a Fan
  (60 fans)

opednews.com

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501707_162-57343353/defense-bill-nears-passage-in-congress/

From the above:

"Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.'

2. Glenn Greenwald's analysis: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/

3. " Anyone can   be accused and sentenced under this article ( 58), even St. Augustine'

A. Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

We, the People   can now be   detained indefinitely without trial. Congratulations,   land   of the free; we are now officially   sheep for slaughter.   T'is   the season to be jolly.   Our multicolored   President   is now satisfied with his powers and flexibility and will sign a   "defense'; Bill. It will most likely happen in the Rose Garden. I would advise a cello concert to accompany the act and children around with flowers.   It   will be a historic moment; civilization, gone with the stench. Not even a whimper. Maybe Levine or McCain will snore   after the   job well done. They deserve    their   rest after   the service to the people. What people, that's the question?

The detailed description and analysis     of the new rules of indefinite   detaining of   the people   and denying them the   due process at the discretion of the administration is   in the link 2 above. Ironically, I am writing this article while on TV they play the movie   "High Crimes', where the woman- lawyer, played by Ashley Judd defends her marine husband in the military court.   Under the new provisions Ashley' character would not even know that her   husband was arrested.     Where did I hear that happening   before?   I know, I know, any comparison to     Nazi Germany     is considered a taboo in   the recommendations even on OEN but    what can I do if the analogy is so striking?   I didn't invent it; Germany was a western democracy and the way it squandered it   was   the way the western democracies are   usually squandered.   Eat your checkers.

In 1933   when Hitler came to power the first people who rose in protest   were not Jews or Social- Democrats. The first people were the German jurists, the Moabith people as they   were called. Moabith was the Palace of Justice in Berlin and   the Moabith people were the guardians of Justice   in Germany. They raised   their voice immediately; the new government of the Nazi Party was not just antidemocratic- it was anti-law. They claimed that the new order according to which a preventive administrative arrest of the people deemed as suspicious and subsequent indefinite detention of those people without trial and/or   the due   process was     the abandonment of the principles of Roman Law, that pillar of   the western civilization. For my fellow- Americans who   for   some bizarre reason think that the US Constitution   is the cornerstone of    liberty and justice for all, I have news for you: Roman Law is the one.   The whole justice system   in the West, from due process and attorney present   to the trial by jury of the peers is based on the   Roman Law with some slight modifications, obviously. Even Napoleonic Code   incorporates      the   principles developed   by the   ancient Roman Republic.    In 1933 those    honest   German jurists announced that special laws, special powers granted to the   Chancellor, allocating detention centers in the barracks   of storm troopers and   building   first concentration camps ( Dachau was opened in 1934 with the 5000- people capacity originally and that was announced openly in the newspapers) was   a blatant violation of   the   Roman Law and as such- returning to barbarism. They rightfully stated that   any   government and/or society that   abandoned   the   Roman Law could not be considered civilized and as such should neither be treated and /or served as such. They urged their colleagues in Germany to relinquish their    fiduciary duties when it came to serving the government and they urged the appropriate   jurists   abroad to   stop treating   Germany as the country of law. They openly   stated   that and then they left the country.   Lots of   them. Those who stayed became   the   slaves   of the system, not   the lawmen   anymore. They were supposed to serve and serve good. The culmination    of that service resulted in   the Nuremburg Laws   of 1936.

T' was the season to be jolly   there too. During the Triumph of the Will, on   the grandiose convention of the Nazi Party   the   new Germany announced the   Laws about    the Protection of   German honor and German   blood. Among other things that law defined as   a felony    for   Jews and Germans to   engage   into a   sexual relationship.   We all know what happened next.

Nothing is new under the sun. Some people now in the US as   some people then in Germany) ask a notable question: why was it so necessary to use the legalese language to justify what   was already    practiced on   a regular basis?   In   the   1930s Germany    a practice of lawlessness and barbarism was already afoot long before 1936. In our country after the abominable Patriot Act the abuse of   the due process had become so common that   it is considered a boring story of the last page, interesting only to   the hard-core   liberals;   in fact in the US the   abuse of law is not even   described as such in the MSM- it is described as some kind of   a videogame process.   Why then it was so necessary   to put   it all under the   pseudo-legal (illegal by definition but   seemingly legal on paper) umbrella then and why is it necessary now?

The answer to this question was given long ago by the same   prominent German jurors     : laws are issued to be followed. This means that before the law is   issued   the evil practice can be attributed to only those who   exercise it and   the society, the people do not have to   consider themselves     a   party responsible, But as soon as there is   a written Law -- it becomes   the Law of all people and all people thus become a   part of it. In both cases- in 1936 and now-   the ruling elite wants the people of the country not just to tolerate its barbarism; they want a   seal of approval, a mandate; they want   the crimes to be committed   for the people, by the people and .. at the people, In sorts they want   the people to commit   suicide. That's how it was in Germany   and that's how it is   happening now.   It was then     and is now a short circuit of evil   followed   by   flowers, music, Christmas trees and   mistletoe.

  Honest   people    do not disappear because of their country   becoming a coven of executioners. Some people   will emigrate, some will go into " internal exile', like curbing their activities and redirecting to   helping individuals instead of   the society as a whole. Some will dive   deeply   into their profession.   It will become a heroic   act just to keep thyself honest though because   lawlessness penetrates everything and everybody.   We face a   miserable existence.    The morbid fact that   the   evil unleashed by the elite   is as dangerous to   them   as to anyone   of us is   more   ironic than satisfactory:   none of us means harm to anybody.   Evil joy   never brings anything good with it.

We love this country and its people; there is no malice in our minds, just sadness and fury.    The   devilish   endeavor is announced while   packaged into the   commercials   and   showmanship; the same way as in 1936   it was announced on the radio    during the concert broadcast   of the great German music. The spiral of history had turned. Whoever God wants to destroy He takes their mind away.   Do we really want to lose our minds?

Apparently   not all of us. I have just   read   that OWS want to occupy the office of Sen. Levine in protest.   This means that our young people     do not want to become   pieces of meat for man- eaters, So now I am rephrasing my question: If our young people are smart enough to notice   the danger aren't we all, their parents,   just deliberately dumb? If the answer is yes that means we had sold our children for   the   false sense of security, that means we are cowards and deserve what's coming.

 

The writer is 57 years old, semi- retired engineer, PhD, PE, CEM. I write fiction on a regular basis and I am also 10 years on OEN.
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Human Coprophagia

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND

They Think Of Us As Slaves ( small note with big conclusion)

Y2012- The Year Of A Coward

The School. Reading 'To Kill a Mockingbird' in Russia

Glory and Malice

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 10 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

They had to have this law in stone, because of the... by marko polo on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:06:50 AM
Would OWS and Ron Paul be in the same sentence? I... by BFalcon on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:32:27 AM
First of all, Ron Paul always has sponsored bills ... by marko polo on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:03:26 PM
about the exact rules but I believe that the insti... by BFalcon on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:39:56 PM
that the issue is bigger than Sen Corzine... I wan... by Mark Sashine on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:48:25 PM
To your article. It is interesting and important, ... by BFalcon on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:35:53 PM
That you google the video Money Masters, it is a d... by marko polo on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:04:57 PM
on several important facts. But the big one is su... by BFalcon on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:23:10 PM
Explain to me, what is a so-called liberal. To me ... by marko polo on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:26:19 PM
Constitution can be interpreted in different ways ... by BFalcon on Friday, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:02:45 PM