Blog Archives
Collateral Damage: A Web Experiment in Which You Judge and Impact Social Policy
Should a line be drawn? When the claimed benefit is thought to outweigh concern for deaths of innocents, what is the difference between a nuclear strike against a city and using a drone or a car bomb to kill everyone in a car where only one person was the target?
By H. Michael Sweeney, copyright © 2013, all rights reserved, proparanoid.wordpress.com Permission to duplicate online hereby granted provided it is reproduced in full with all links and text colors in tact and unaltered, including this notice.When is collateral damage acceptable?
Is collateral damage ever acceptable?
Revealing article on Drone Attacks (more than we hear about) from Der Spiegel (CLICK).
With Obama ordering 30,000 Drones into American skies, and the military regularly conducting raids against American cities, and Police shooting at anyone on two feet to get one Cop Killer in California… we should perhaps come to a clear and concise understanding of what constitutes acceptable collateral damage, if anything at all. Perhaps “Thou shalt not kill,” is all we need to know. But…
If you could save 100 lives by killing one innocent person, would you elect their execution? If the only way you could prevent a Sept. 11 style attack threatening thousands was by shooting down a hijacked jetliner, would you so elect? Would you order someone sniped because of a significant chance they were about to kill the President, with no way to prevent it otherwise, but also no way to know for certain if they were the right person because all you had was circumstantial evidence? Where do you, personally, draw the line?
We hear those two words more and more in our news, even when there is no actual war going on. Drone diplomacy and policing has turned the taking of life into a video game, where decisions about who lives and dies is frequently being decided by a stranger in a darkened room half-way around the World. Murder is still murder, is it not? Or is it? What madness is this, that anyone ever has the authority for reasons of political expediency to decide life-or-death fate of innocent persons? Or is it silliness to even dare ask?
If a murderer deliberately sets out to kill you, or any person sets into motion events which accidentally kill you, that’s God’s domain to decide. His Will be done. But if your government or another wants to kill you simply to insure that someone else dies, or to insure some important political outcome for which you are not involved with or perhaps even aware of, who decides if the reason is good enough? I doubt they ask God before they sign off on the act. But what if YOU were the one to decide?
The answer is not simple, of course. For instance, for each unintended casualty, the blowback can be quite damaging and unexpected. Each becomes a martyred victim of US Imperialism (or something similar, depending on the target, of course) and literally strengthens the enemy. Governments and media in all nations involved, including our own, tend to roast (the President, or whomever) over a slow fire; it weakens relations with allies and foes alike internationally, and erodes political integrity at home. Collateral Damage can end up being to a tactical mission and the politics and politicians behind the mission the same as a total crash and burn, the burn often worse than the evil being attacked in the first place.
Is it OK to kill an innocent person if it will save the lives of many other people?
Where would you draw the line?
The answer may indeed be yours to decide — by means of the simple poll herein, which you are invited to use, which may very well give us a public concensus which can be used to help shape public policy by agencies, and the military, and those who empower them and wield them as political tools. Results of the poll may spark more officious study or even be cited directly in activist and legislative quarters. But only if you participate will it have such value. Answers are anonymous, and not traceable to individuals.
Lets look at a few examples in history which will give you practice for the Poll.
Deliberately sinking a passenger liner: During WWI the passenger steamship RMS Lusitania was headed for England from New York with nearly 2,000 souls on board. Two people decided its fate, but ultimately, one was responsible, correctly predicting the other’s response to their provocation.
A torpedo was fired by a U-Boat, sinking the luxury liner, a horrific event which turned the tide of public and Congressional opinion in the United States and brought America into the war; nearly 10% of the 1,198 persons who died were Americans, many of them prominent. Who was really to blame?
It was not the U-Boat Captain, because the German High Command had already given the order that the Lusitania, if sighted, was to be considered a combatant because intelligence had revealed it was carrying munitions for England acquired from America, a violation of international law. This decision weighed 2,000 against the loss of life such munitions would inflict upon the German Army to the detriment of their war effort. But their decision it is not the one you are asked to judge.
Some other, unknown person, an American, also made a decision. Not just to illegally put munitions on a passenger ship without informing the steamship company, who would have objected and refused. No, that was by far a more innocent decision. The real decision that we are asking you to judge is this: that person also decided to deliberately allow the Germans to learn of the munition shipment specifically in hopes that they would dare sink the Liner, because that person, and their counsel, wanted the United States to go to war for political expedience.
Would you deem the Lusitania’s passengers as acceptible collateral damage for such a ‘noble political aim’ as rescuing Europe from domination by Germany, the argument they relied upon in their decision? Would it help to know that among those counseling for the move were shareholders and Board Members in the Powder Industry, makers of weapons and munitions?
This later aspect, the Powder Industry, highlights the importance of questioning such decisions. Often the decision makers have ulterior motives which are not part of the official consideration, or justification. The Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Media Complex, and the New World Order crowd (often one and the same people), are more often than not the decision makers. So choose wisely, your answers.
Dropping the Atomic Bomb: In WWII we decided to use the Atom bomb to try to force Japan to surrender. While the US Government was unwilling to cite the true facts and figures used in their decision, the argument to bomb was simple: using the bomb could speed the end of the war and save more lives on both sides than would be lost by dropping the bomb. Just like the Germans and the Lusitania.
President Truman rightly saw no difference in terms of moral choice between Atomics and fire bombing, already authorized in the bombing of Dresden, a like horrific act of war against civilian populations. Of course, we were also regularly firebombing Japan, a nation where homes were literally made of paper, burning to death up to 100,000 civilians in a single city. Indeed, we might should be arguing the bombing of any city by any kind of bomb should undergo the same scrutiny. But we need to focus on a singular incident.
In excusing the use of Atomic weapons, the military claimed they had at the time estimated it would save 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives of US military, and 1.7 to 4 million Japanese by avoiding invasion. We now know that the actual estimates were far less than the propoganda those larger numbers represent, numbers which continue to be used even today.
In like manner, the number of deaths predicted for the Japanese were minimized beyond reality. It was argued that by dropping warning leaflets ahead of the attack, citizens could be evacuated and limit their losses to mere tens of thousands, refusing the advice that such leaflets would be ignored as a scare tactic, which was indeed the case. Very few people fled the cities as result; most who could flee had already done so when non atomic bombing started taking its toll.
In all, more than a quarter million Japanese perished because of the two bombs dropped (it originally being argued a single bomb would do the job). The actual number of American lives estimated to have been saved from invasion was 60-190,000, and perhaps twice that number of Japanese. So let us presume the estimated loss by bombing was only 50,000 Japanese, and that it would save up to 200,000 combatants on each side by conventional invasion (50K vs. 400K). What would your decision be?
When the actual loss of life was later known, how would you feel? I think I would feel like confessing and suicide. Indeed, our first Secretary of Defense, James Forestall, who was one of the decision makers, may have taken that path, or he may have been assassinated for threatening to do so. He, or someone, put a cord around his neck before his body left the second story room via a window… in a government detention facility with barred windows, where he was being kept against his will after walking off the job without explanation.
Lets reduce the scale a bit — are Janitors acceptable collateral damage? Based on a real-World decision to bomb Lybia in retaliation for terrorist attacks backed by the Lybian government… dialog in the screenplay The American President (title role played by Michael Douglas) detailed what is thought to have been part of the actual decision making process by Presidents Reagan and, later, GW Bush… though in fact, the terrorism itself was seen by many as reprisal for attempts to kill Muammar Gaddafi already undertaken by America. I doubt the dialog took place in real life, but let’s use it, anyway…
The President (Shepard) is having a late-night emergency dialog with military and staff about the decision to order a B-1 Bomber attack in a ‘retaliation’ scenario. He is under intense political pressure by the other Party in a hotly contested bid for reelection against a man named Rumson (a ‘Defense Hawk’ rather a lot like Donald Rumsfeld), Shepard’s lack of military experience and seeming timidity in the face of affronts by other nations and terrorism being used against him. Keep in mind, that a large building would not have a single janitor, but a team of many, as well as the likelihood of citizens at large being on the streets nearby:
A.J.
Robin, as soon as our planes have cleared Libyan airspace, you can call the press…
LEWIS
General Rork says around O-Eight Hundred.
ROBIN
Sir, what do you think about a national address?
SHEPHERD
The last thing I want to do is put the Lybians center stage.
KODAK
I think it’s a great idea, sir. You know Rumson’s gonna be talking about your lack of military service.
SHEPHERD
This isn’t about Rumson. What I did tonight was not about political gain.
KODAK
But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
SHEPHERD
Leon, somewhere in Libya right now there’s a janitor working the night shift at the Libyan Intelligence Headquarters. He’s going about his job ’cause he has no idea that in about an hour he’s gonna die in a massive explosion. He’s just going about his job ’cause he has no idea that an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You just saw me do the least presidential thing I do.
So what would your verdict be? Would the international strategic political value of such an attack justify the collateral damage of a few janitors? On the assumption you genuinely feared the opposition would take America into an unwise war for the benefit of the military-industrial complex if they won the election, would the political gains at the voting booth change your answer?
Final example: Drone attack. It happens more than we hear about in media. I highly urge you to watch the Matt Damon/George Clooney film, Syriana (sorry for the multiple film references, but such things are part of media’s overall impact on our belief structures, and often the best ways of illustrating visually a gritty reality otherwise limited to mere words). Syriana is an insightful look at the intrigues of Middle East politics and oil-industry machinations rarely gained from the headlines. It also shows you exactly how a Drone attack is carried out in terms of command and control. But you need not see the film, or read the non fiction book it was based upon, See No Evil, by Robert Baer.
The question is, a CIA informant has provided fast-breaking intelligence that a known terrorist has, by unusual circumstances, been spotted hitchhiking and picked up by a car now driving along a deserted roadway in the desert. Presume there is a terror plot in works that will take perhaps hundreds of lives if you do not find a way to stop him. But it is also known that the other occupants, the driver, a woman and a child, do not know who their passenger is. Do you order a Drone to strike, or do you pass for a better opportunity, which are few and far between?
These are hard questions our leaders face all-too often. They do what they think is right for you, perhaps at times for political gain or for corporate profits, but always doing so in your name regardless of reason. So let’s take the poll, and see what you think should or should not be done in your name.
Poll on collateral damage
The Polls
Poll assumptions: Assume you are Commander in Chief or some other person for whom the decision is yours and yours alone. You’ve already asked advice, but it was 50-50 in weight results, and of no help, or there is no one to ask. The answers are incremental in nature, and as it is multiple choice, you only get one answer — each prior answer is considered inclusive in subsequent answers.
You should take the poll before finishing this article, because the remainder of the article might change your answers in the first section. Part of the experiment is to gauge just that: did additional considerations change your answer, as covered later.
But remember: how you answer about the value of the lives of others may impact how government thinks about the value of your life, or a loved one. A casual answer could be costly, considering the 30,000 Drones, military raids on American Cities, and trigger happy Cops in many American cities.
Now that you’ve taken the first section. Lets ask the question in two more case studies. Bear in mind this time, however, how you’ve already answered on the Poll. That means you will need to weigh your answer to the following questions based on decisions you’ve already made. Its about body count, and justification. The context will be different, but it should not change your answers if your logic remains true to form.
The first regarding the Death Penalty for capital crime. We know for a fact that some percentage of persons sent to Death Row turn out to be innocent, in the end. Shockingly, there are at least 39 instances where there was overwhelming evidence of innocence but the stay of execution was refused out of fear it would cause turmoil or harm to the general function of the courts and penal system. For example, a single incident might force the verdict in hundreds of cases to be thrown out and require new trials. Is that acceptable collateral damage, or should the death penalty simply be abolished and the system be forced to clean up its own mistakes?
Take that same reasoning, now, and apply it to NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the President and Military the power and authority to assassinate any American merely suspected of being involved in terrorism (or simply kidnap and vanish and/or torture them). No due process. No trial. Is there any difference in the likelihood of collateral damage being present in such an act as there is in the Death Penalty scenario? That, too, is being done in your name.
Is it acceptable collateral damage to execute a death row prisoner who is really innocent?
The second is more complex. It will require you to suspend your current belief structure and to take on the mindset of someone quite different than you (hopefully). If you were of a political mindset that truly believed that the only good future course for the World was a one-World government… and understood that the only way such a government could exist was if, among other things, the United States, Mexico, and Canada formed the North American Union… and that the only way to establish that was to stage a military coup and suspend the Constitution that it could be replaced with a new Constitution which enables the NAU. Consider further that you believe (correctly), that the 2nd Amendment makes the outcome of such a coup highly unpredictable.
Note: the Constitution of the NewStates of America has already been written, as reproduced with analysis as such a document in my bookset, Fatal Rebirth. Please see special offer on free copy of Volume I by email.
If you believed the above to be true, and you believed that if there a one-World government was not established, dire consequences such as World-wide famine and wars over shortages of oil and food would result costing billions of lives (the kinds of arguments sometimes used to recruit for Globalists agenda)… and given HOW YOU RESPONDED TO THE POLL, could you justify in your mind a given number of innocent lives to help insure repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
Would you be willing, for instance, to authorize staging mass shootings to heat up the gun control debate, knowing that eventually, it would force a confrontation with gun owners and result in Martial Law, etc.? Would it be better to kill a few hundred people to save billions, or not? Would it matter if whole bunches of them were school kids, or wouldn’t it make it better for the purpose? Regardless of your own personal answer, look at the Poll results to see how others voted.
If just ONE person voted in the first section in a manner which implies they might also decide in favor of collateral damage in this matter, then does that change how you view of conspiracy theories regarding Comumbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and the many other mass shootings where such charges have been levied by critics? Does it change your previous opinion as to the likelihood or possibility that such a conspiracy might exist?
Is a false flag event ever excused as acceptable collateral damage?
How can collateral damage be anything but murder?
Summary commentary
Just asking? Just saying? No. It’s more important than curiosity, or what I believe is true. As a nation, we make public policy and law, in part, by virtue of battles between varied agenda and beliefs present in our collective body of decision makers, and prior policy and law.
Leaders make collateral damage decisions based on the limitations of law and public policy, and their willingness to violate either. But also, any willingness to violate the law or policy is, in part, determined by public outcry and expression of citizen beliefs. God save us were the no such thing as an activist, conspiracy theorist, honest and diligent reporters, or letters to the Editor and to Congressmen.
Unfortunately, where a conspiracy exists by those with an agenda, it is easy to manipulate emotions to impact that public expression. The purpose in asking these questions, was to help you reevaluate the mechanisms and basis for your viewpoints, and to stir you to express any changes in opinion or beliefs which result, or to at least be more open to considering the arguments of others that such change is warranted.
If you do not understand the reality of decisions made in your name, your opinion about them is incorrect, and the decisions are not being made correctly to your true wishes. You are de facto victim even if you are completely unaware, and by your ignorance, others suffer more seriously, including paying the ultimate price.
Those who have full understanding also know that conspiracy theories only exist when reported facts do not make sense. Conspiracies are hard to prove without proper investigation, which is all ‘conspiracy theorists’ seek to sponsor when they propose their alternative explanations or explore the evidence publicly. If enough people say “Yeah… what about that, Mr. Congressman? I want an honest investigation with no white wash,” truth stands a chance. Conspiracies cannot otherwise prove themselves except by two means, one rare, and the other all-too common, but completely ignored.
They rarely are proven by confession or smoking gun evidence, because theorists do not have the authority or means to acquire them, as a rule. But whenever there is any evidence of a cover up, or disinformation tactics used against the theories, that alone proves there is a conspiracy afoot. So when media and government responds to theories by name calling or lies instead of explaining away the charges with useful facts… you know there is fire beneath the smoke.
Please question government, always, lest you be fooled again. All governments lie, and all-too often, for reasons just as questionable as collateral damage, which is almost always part and parcel of any conspiracy. They do so in your name, and only you can prevent that deception, that collateral damage. Your mind is yours to control, not theirs to manipulate with lies, just as your life is yours to live, and not theirs to dispose of as collateral damage for political gain.
Neither is there any difference between your life or that of a loved one, and the life of some nameless person in another nation on the other side of the planet. If they deem any individual acceptable collateral damage, then every individual can be so deemed just as easily, regardless of nationality or political beliefs. If you have rights, all have rights, or non have rights. There is no insurance for you, alone, but that which you make true for all by voicing your mind.
There is no difference, so use your mind, think for yourself, and voice your opinions loudly, lest you loose your life, or someone else does in your stead… and in your name.
Related articles
- Kirsten Powers Tears Into Conservative On Fox After He Dismisses Concerns Over Innocents Killed By Drones (mediaite.com)
- France hides “collateral damage” caused by its airstrikes in Mali (willyloman.wordpress.com)
- COLLATERAL DAMAGE: US Has Killed 100s Of Afghan Children Since 2008 (secretsofthefed.com)
- Thinking Our Anger (c4ss.org)
On Routine Political Assassination of U.S. Citizens; a Simple Remedy
Murder is a Capital Crime…
Especially When the Killer is President of The United States
by H. Michael Sweeney
Media has yet to give Citizens a full accounting of the true facts and import to Constitutional freedoms involved in the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, aka simply as NDAA, an unlawful Bill which completely neutered the Constitution and gave President Obama the power of a King to throw anyone into a dungeon for life, torture them, or have them executed merely by uttering the wish, and do so in complete secrecy under the guise of ‘National Security’. Those two words no longer have useful value, they are so abused.
Try as you may, its difficult to find a major news outlet who faithfully told its audience that it reverted the Country to a form of rule of law which existed well before the Constitution, and even before the Magna Carta, which sought to the end of the tyranny of Kings and their unchecked power of Life and Death without legal recourse.
NDAA, by contrast, is a law which returns to the King of America ‘Off with their head’ powers. No legal recourse whatsoever, no legal procedure beyond internal secret notifications, no requirement to explain why or give evidence, no legal documentation or public record for explaining after the fact, and all fully covert in nature.
This means any citizen can, for any reason, arbitrary or otherwise, be deemed or described for political convenience as a ‘threat’ to the United States. At that point they may be covertly detained by Agents of the military or intelligence community without any form of warrant. This is called kidnapping everywhere in the World.
They may be thrown into a prison cell with indefinite detention and no prospect of any form of trial or hearing. This is called ‘vanishing a person,’ extremely popular in Dictatorships.
They may be exported to another country for harsher treatments (torture, murder). This is called Rendition, and we already are guilty of it here in the United States, and should be ashamed.
They can even be so treated here in the United States. In fact, a citizen may simply be assassinated or murdered by any means (bomb, sniper, ‘heart attack’ drugs, gassing while asleep, etc.) without bothering to kidnap them, no matter where in the World they are, in full public view or otherwise.
There have already been at least three known assassinations by drone air strikes in the Middle East. Hundreds of such murders by other means may have never made the news, and we would have no clue. The government’s subsequent announcement of the intention of putting 30,000 such killer/surveillance drones into the skies of America reveals an intent to bring that capability here to the United States. Thus a citizen could be driving down a back highway and suddenly, a missile eviscerates him, his car, and anyone unfortunate enough to be with him as collateral damage. It’s all intended to be ‘legal’ under the Act, but of course, the Act itself is unlawful.
A simple example:
Take for example of murdered teen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Understand I do not care if he was a terrorist, or not, (based on available evidence, I think not) nor should we care, any of us — for without due process under the law, violation of basic legal Constitutional rights and human rights is never justified. But in all such assassinations, there is probably no shred of truly useful evidence available to make any such case against the dead, or why not simply use it in court and obtain a warrant authorizing legal prosecution under the law? Else why would there be silence regarding such evidence after the fact? No. All we get is insinuation of guilt, generally by vaguely implied association.
So, what can we do with a King with blood on his hands?
There is no need to wait for perhaps a decade for a court process to eventually rule it Unconstitutional. Any moron can see it is so, and morally wrong as well. All it takes is for any single man of proper authority of Office to obey their own Oath to the Constitution which allowed them to be seated in Office.
1) Since the responsibility for the authority given to execute the air strikes against civilians rests with the President of the United States, The Sheriff or District Attorney in the County (or city) of residence of the murder victims, or better, the State Attorney General, should be filing charges of Murder and, by provision of a copy of NDAA and media accounts of the deaths to a Grand Jury, seek a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Barack Obama, should he dare enter their jurisdiction. They need only do the right thing; File the charges!
2) Since the chain of command of such crimes under the Act generally include the Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, any such actions should consider like charges against these individuals, plus the General of the specific branch of Armed forces or head of CIA or other Agency operating the strike platform effecting the deaths, and all sub commanders down the line, when identifiable. Where possible, investigation toward such determinations should be undertaken. This is Conspiracy to Commit Murder, and no less.
Moreover, since NDAA was voted for by 86 Senators and 283 Representatives, making them co conspirators in my opinion, and I’d file charges against them, as well, which would be really problematic for those representing the State where the charges were filed. GOOD! No Congressman should ever sign an unconstitutional Bill without being fully liable for its consequences. It’s their job, after all. Such a threat should start them down the path of deeming to actually read legislation before they vote for it, and take due ownership of their actions in Congress. They are not exempt in a Capital crime.
3) This should be followed by requests for arrest and extradition sent to each of the other States of the Union, and the District of Columbia. It matters not whether any State agrees to such requests (and we presume D.C. would not), because the publicity alone would be worth the effort. But where a State might be so bold as to honor the request, the President and the others would be rendered Outlaw and unable to travel there without risking confrontation between local law enforcement and perhaps Secret Service.
4) If necessary, any such confrontation should be prosecuted with the same prejudice as any lawful Police enforcement seeking arrest of any party where third parties presume to get in the way, even if it means gunplay. No man is above the law, but also, no man should be forced to live under an unjust law.
5) Simultaneously, the relatives of the murdered should file civil charges of murder/wrongful death in their local courts, and all such efforts should involve as much media attention as can be garnered.
A legal basis does exist:
Some readers may wish to observe that local law enforcement may not presume the lack of validity of a Congressional Act for the purpose of filing such charges. However, they need not so presume. A Court has already ruled the Act should be enjoined (forbidden to have force of law) in a case filed by various Political Activists fearing for their lives at the hands of Government — as all such activists should rightly fear. One of them was even a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. Here is the actual ruling. While it has not wend its way yet to the Supreme Court, that need not deter local authorities from so acting. They can always ‘drop the charges’ should the ruling be overturned, if they felt so obliged.
Moreover, the known deaths of U.S. Citizens by Drone, and in one case, Helicopter Gunship, have all predated the NDAA, which is to say there was no ‘legal authorization’ (NDAA) upon which to ‘claim authority.’ File the charges!
The value of any such charges being filed and warrants issued do not lie in or require the possibility of their fruitful execution, which is less than likely, we must presume. The true value is in the Political statements they make and the education of the citizens as to their true slavery to the King, and their true peril and lack of rights, and the Fascist Police State which is our sad de facto state of being. It tells the World that We the People acknowledge we have a criminal in the White House and do not condone his actions, and we demand justice for all people, who are created equal and should to be so treated by the law of the land. THAT is the American Way, is it not?
For should the President choose for whatever displeasure to eliminate a political enemy, he need only pick up the phone. That, is the tyrannical power of a King, and the use of such power is such a slippery slope that it is a precipice over which all citizens become mere Lemmings at will or whim. This is the definition of a Police State. It is a formula which could easily lead to armed revolution if not remedied.
File the charges!
Related articles
- What Does it Take to Start a Revolution? (proparanoid.wordpress.com)
- MSM Blackout On NDAA Being Blocked As Unconsitutional (alexanderhiggins.com)
- Obama’s Dictatorship: Has the NDAA Accelerated the Need for Obama’s Civilian National Security Force? (americafirstsite.com)
- One Foot Off the Slippery Slope: NDAA Ruled Unconstitutional (dailypaul.com)
- The CIA’s History of Assassinations of American Citizens (truth11.com)
- Five Reasons Drone Assassinations are Illegal (counterpunch.org)
- Police Announce Plans To Weaponize Drones Flying Over US Skies (alexanderhiggins.com)
- More Evil Coming from the NDAA: The band of thieves known as the Federal Government (overmanwarrior.wordpress.com)
- Assassinations on U.S. Soil Not Ruled Out by Fbi (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)
proparanoid 
Has NDAA Made Shooting Federal Agents, Soldiers, and Cops Legal?
Mar 30
Posted by Author H. Michael Sweeney
No court should ever find one guilty of murder or manslaughter if defending their own lives from murder or kidnapping. For many people, NDAA, and violations of Posse Comitatus by military represents such a threat, and more recently, the Monsanto Protection Act. Therefore, we all might ought to so consider their reasoning; if one man should so fear the tyrannical act of their government, so then should we all.
by H. Michael Sweeney copyright © 2013, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this paragraph, are included.Reading this post you will learn…
Can you shoot a lawman or soldier lawfully exercising his duty and still claim self defense?
Are Molotov Cocktails ever self defense? (click) From interesting art collection feedtacoma.com
In a casual conversation with some friends, an interesting dialog evolved which led to some serious debate and troubling afterthought at the implications of what had been said. It started simply. The topic of NDAA, having come up, someone replied, “Given that the government can simply haul someone away without any form of due process, and vanish them to some hell hole in Cuba or elsewhere for torture, endless imprisonment, I’m wondering…”
He was invited to continue. “Suppose some activist feels targeted by government in heavy-handed ways… someone who has been forced to a paranoiac defensive posture as result… and some Federal agents decide to show up for some reason. What happens if he figures they are there to vanish him like some South American dictatorship? What if he acts in self defense and pops the agents before they can do much more than flash their badges. Would that be reasonable self defense? Even if they were only there for some more innocent reason?”
“Or…” added another, “suppose someone started shooting at soldiers or Cops when they engage in these so-called ‘mock drills’ with Police in urban settings… thinking that the soldiers were coming after them or their guns. I’m surprised that pop shots haven’t already been fired.”
And I would have added, if the conversation were taking place today, the day Barry Sorento signed the Monsanto Protection Act… “Suppose someone burns down a Monsanto factory and ends up killing company employees in the process, trying to prevent the company from poisoning everyone with GMO crops, knowing that now, it is illegal to seek redress in the courts for cause? Would that be self defense?”
I know. You are probably thinking what I was thinking. Absurd questions. No one could convince a jury the FBI or the Army was there to kill them, or that the mere appearance of Agents or soldiers was logically a threat, right? Or arson and resulting deaths? And that is what caused the conversation to get interesting, because that very doubt sparked a lot of verbal wrestling in anecdotal exchanges. We eventually pinned the issue to the mat with a chain of logic which indeed deserves further consideration, here.
“There was this case I saw in the news,” another started, and he proceeded to describe something I myself recalled seeing, once he got out the details — which actually hit a little close to home, as will be explained shortly. “This Black guy, a known felon, used an illegal machine pistol to gun down a bunch of cops who had just busted down his door to serve a warrant. He went to jail, but not for their murder. It was ruled self defense. Imagine. A Black kills White cops in New York, and gets away with it?”
“How is that possible?” asked another.
“I saw a reenactment on TV,” I offered. “He was seated with his back to the door, watching TV in the dark with the volume up. Seven Cops entered the front door after a knock with guns drawn, and shouted for him. He had a fully automatic Ingram there on his armrest with 30 rounds, because some bad cops had already threatened his life. So he instinctively grabbed the gun and emptied it on full-auto and dove for cover, and then made good an escape. All but one of the cops died, despite wearing vests. He feared for his life, and once apprehended, the Defense was able to prove in court a reasonable basis for that fear. They got him on weapons charges, but not murder.”
Then I told them how easily I could identify with that. I recounted true events about a time when my first brush with ‘spooks,’ where some of those arrayed against me were in-place assets within five different local law enforcement agencies. When my investigations got close to unraveling their criminal enterprises, several of them apparently felt their offices gave them cart blanch to ‘get away with murder’ to protect their part in matters. They unilaterally sought to eliminate me, it seems:
a) a County Sheriff from a distant County threatened me with a gun in a folded newspaper, but was turned away due to a security camera’s presence after I pointed it out to him; b) a local cop, with a possible helper as getaway driver, carved out a sniper’s nest in a tree on a hill outside my bedroom, from which a laser beam shown through my window as I retired in the dark one night — but I saw the beam drawing down the wall and rolled out of bed to avoid it; c) that same cop later used a patrol car as a weapon. He zoomed onto the empty freeway from an entrance as I passed it, no lights or siren (not even headlights, until after he fled the scene). He crossed six lanes at about a 45 degree angle to force me to run me off the road on the far side at a bridge abutment, himself swerving into the parking meridian to avoid crashing himself, because I had managed to successfully evaded a side-swipe and retained control without ending up in the river; d) two patrol cars pulled me over at an underpass at two AM in the morning, joined by several more pairs of cars both ahead of and behind me; County, local Police, and unmarked units. It was an ambush. But my wife turned out to be present, so they ‘explained’ their stop: “You have a burned out tail light.” Uh huh.There were other incidents not quite as scary, too, involving high-speed chases with up to six vehicles, and a series of break ins by men with walkie talkies. So I had every reason to be paranoid about cops in those times. If you want to know how I ended these problems, read my book set, Fatal Rebirth, which also explains why I had become targeted in the first place. But here is the part which directly relates, also in the book: you can imagine my surprise when, after all those threats, two local Sheriffs walked in my front door without so much as knocking.
Had I had a gun sitting on my sofa arm, I would likely have at the least leveled it on them and demand their hands up. Fortunately, there were extenuating circumstances and their purpose was no true threat, and I had no such gun to risk any undue complications. But I would certainly have considered my actions to have been in self defense had it been so. I surely could relate to the story being cited.
With that realization, the dialog between us started to examine the questions asked more carefully. What follows are some additional observations and conclusions which illuminate the matter more thoughtfully, some of which include references to appropriate quotes. Some were offered at the time, others are added here, by me.
1) The Bill of Rights has as its sole purpose the intent, beyond cementing the integrity of government’s covenant with We, The People, that all citizens should be able to pursue happiness, and enjoy life and liberty, and carefully spells out a series of interlocking safeguarding Amendments to insure it so. One has no liberty if kidnappable on demand, and no assurance to life when torture and murder are part of the kidnapper’s tools. While it does not specifically addresses self defense as topic, it was concluded that “the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments specifically assure us that the Man who would be King’s portion of NDAA has no force of Constitutional law behind it”, as it tramples on these rights in the worst possible ways. Me.
2) Seven people felt so terrorized by NDAA’s threat upon their lives as activists and journalists reporting on sins of government that they went to Court. These included Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, and Daniel Ellsberg who was a focal point in the Pentagon Papers and Watergate debacles in the 60s, both exposing the Federal government’s abuses of the day. Supporters of Wikileaks were also party to the suit. A lawyer for the group said “There’s a lot of activists who understand how serious this is, but it’s less well known to the general public.”
3) We concurred in commentary on the case that, “Because the ‘war on terror’ is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.” Journalist, Brian J. Trautman.
4) A Federal Judge in the case ruled those provisions in NDAA of concern are indeed unconstitutional and issued an injunction against their use. However, there has been no acknowledgement or sign from any quarters in government that they will abide by the findings, and there is every indication that the Obama Administration intends to ignore the ruling in further lawless ‘off the books’ application of NDAA. In appealing the case, it was revealed in arguments by government Lawyer’s that government had been utilizing such methods all along. Indeed, the government refuses to discuss if it is being used or will be used on Citizens in the United States, and it is known for a fact it has already killed three American Citizens abroad, including a 16 year old, with a Drone Strike.
5) Worse, at request of Justice (per the above link), another Federal Judge has granted a ‘Emergency Stay’ against the former rendering it moot and the Justice Department has argued that NDAA is not even necessary, because the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2001, as interpreted already for use in permanent detention in Guantanamo, already gives government like powers. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, told Congress it would be legal to kill an American in America with a drone. Oh, what slippery slope…
6) An almost endless series of Acts from the Patriot Act forward have spelled out an almost unlimited list of ‘reasons’ which can be used to ‘define’ a given act as ‘terrorism,’ all such reasons generally described in nebulous and sweeping terms deliberately vague so as to allow the broadest possible interpretation to suit the needs of government at any given moment in time with any given individual. You can even be deemed a terrorist for illegally downloading or copying a song or movie — an ‘act of financial terrorism’ which de facto enjoins the teenager ripping a song in an imagined conspiracy to topple the music industry and harm American free enterprise. A Mother was recently jailed under the Patriot Act as a terrorist for spanking her children on an airline, and detained for three months before she could even enter a plea.
7) The rhetoric out of Washington and media spin doctors is all-too often such that almost anyone who disagrees with the official point of view is demonized and described as a mix of ‘dangerous,’ ‘mentally ill,’ and/or even (especially) as ‘terrorist,’ all in the name of political expedience. FBI has recently circulated to Police Departments and Community groups (a Hitler-like attempt at recruiting citizens to spy on citizens) a series of official lists of ‘indicators’ that a person is a potential terrorist to specifically include persons ‘overly concerned with the Constitution,’ or who ‘buy coffee with cash,’ or ‘use a hot spot.’ Ron Paul supporters are potential terrorists, according to FBI, which shows just how easily the label can be applied for political convenience. These lists actually ask you to call and report such persons to DHS/FBI. Indeed, not one person present in the conversation leading to this post remained free of such wholesale classifications. Such labeling establishes in the minds of the outspoken, real or imagined, an air of viable threat of loss of life and liberty and, thereby, sways the minds and mood of the public against them closer to becoming potential reality. It is, in my opinion, a form of calculated psyops mind control. “In a government bottomed on the will of all, the liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.” Thomas Jefferson.
8) All the talk of banning guns, and the U.N. Treaty which would, if signed by the man claiming to be President, and ratified, would force the end of the Second Amendment and the disarming of America, came into play simultaneous to a series of violations of Posse Comitatus so brazen as to make news in mainstream media. It has seemed in the minds of some as if these mock invasions of U.S. cities by military was in preparation for coming after the guns. Add to that the military’s ‘Shoot Americans’ questionnaire to troops, General Tommy Frank’s admission that we are headed for a military government, revelations of military manuals which dictate that protestors should be shot, the ordering of 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition by Homeland Security, the refusal of Obama’s candidate to head and actual atrocities already committed (Ruby Ridge, Waco, The Liebe Street Raid, Katrina, ICE ‘border stops’ checkpoints nowhere near the border, and similar TSA abuses, etc.), there is little reason for an informed thinker to see such fears as wholly baseless.
9) Every State in the Union recognizes exercise of deadly force in self-defense as a right, provided the acts were undertaken with a demonstrable reason to fear for their life or liberty (e.g., kidnapping, vanishing, torture, or murder, and in many cases, simply serious harm or significant casualty loss).
So, if someone ‘deemed’ a terrorist by loose rhetoric of manipulative minds or secret edicts of government machines because of unpopular political views… should such a person be approached by Men in Black, or Blue, or Army Green, the question remains valid: has Obama created a situation where even one such person might reasonably fear for their lives sufficient to arm themselves and proactively defend against the possibility?
We pray not, and yet, it is likely unavoidable that such will eventually come to pass one way or another, in time. It may indeed already have come to pass but simply not have made the news beyond statements that (the party) was ‘killed resisting arrest.’ What reason would authorities have to broadcast details suggesting otherwise?
When government embarks on a tyrannical course against its own citizens, some such confrontation is ABSOLUTELY ASSURED. How it turns out is a matter of happenstance no one can predict for certain, though it must result in a bad end for someone, or multiple someone’s. In truth, it is bad for us all, as it ratchets up the tension and increases the likelihood of a repeat scenario. In time, if we study history, we learn it must lead to armed rebellion. Thus we should be mindful to the tenth point we had concluded in our conversation:
10) If just one person’s rights can be trampled upon by government at will, than the rights of no one is respected and do not remain valid; they become mere political rhetoric, a lip service. If one of us lives in fear for cause, then we all ought be mindful; the fear is truly a threat to us all. If one of us must act in self defense, then ultimately, we might all be better off acting in mutual defense sooner than later. “Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.” — Coretta Scott King. “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ― John F. Kennedy
When is it a greater crime: to kill in self defense of others, or to allow others to die for lack of preempting their murder?
So, each of us must ask ourselves the following question: “Do I fear my government enough to consider the possibility that a confrontation may represent a kidnapping and life or death situation for me, if not at that moment, then as result of events which follow the moment? How can I, in good conscience, not consider to defend myself?
Indeed, for me, merely writing this makes me even more likely the target of NDAA. And I freely admit to qualifying to no fewer than a dozen ‘traits’ of a terrorist according to FBI’s little snitch lists. And, you know, with 85 terror tactics like ‘paying with cash’ on that list, SO ARE YOU. That’s exactly what I’m saying. If one of us… all of us.
And just as important, who has the most ultimate power: the individual with rights under just Law of the Land, or an unjust and illegal law in the hands of the corporate state? The answers SHOULD be, the former, especially when there is no individual, but a united collective of individuals with the same intent.
The United States of Sorento Corporation
My ultimatum to the Sorento Corporation:
So I’m putting government on notice: Dear U.S. Sorento Corporation, fictitious holding company DBA United States, as listed in Dun and Bradstreet, and now a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Corporation: I have a reasonable fear for my safety by YOUR own assigned definitions under your illegal corporate bylaws, which relegate me to the class of client termed therein as a terrorist. This terrorist therefore reserves the right of self defense, by any available means, up to and including your discorporation, and that of your parent and holding company. This I do under the authority granted my by the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the license of being a Free Sovereign Man, and not your personal property or chattel.
Moreover, the weapons I have and will use in my defense are beyond your ability to overcome by drone, by stealthy assassins, or by overpowering forces. They are ideas, and you cannot kill an idea. It is truth, and you cannot imprisson a truth once it is revealed. It is a willingness to die for my country, and you cannot kidnap that fact. You may, in fact, only martyr me, at best — a thing more to my advantage than to yours.
Take your best shot, if you dare, for I am everyman, and what you do to one of us you do to all of us. And frankly, I don’t think you can afford very many more martyrs before you spark a revolution. Which leads me to the notion, with apologies to friends Anonymous…
Does Anonymous act in self defense given they fight tyranny?
We are all everyman. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us!
Related articles
Share this:
Like this:
Posted in Abuse of Power, Government, military, Political Commentary, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Tags: kidnapping, Murder, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, posse comitatus, self defense, US Sorento Corporation, vanishing