If this doesn’t scare you than I don’t know what will.

TWO ‘ACTS’ OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY!By Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
December 7, 2006
Updated June 2, 2007

On October 17, 2006, ‘a date which will live in infamy’ . . . there were two acts of tyranny committed. The first was a public signing of the ‘Military Commissions Act of 2006’ which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare you an ‘enemy combatant’ and end your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment.

The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony, in which the president signed into law the ‘John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007’ which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act. The NDAA will allow the president to declare a ‘public emergency’ and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to ‘suppress public disorder’!

About The Military Commissions Act of 2006 . . .

“A writ of habeas corpus which is Latin for ‘you have the body’ [as proof] is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.”(1)

“The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is ‘the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action’.”(1)

Read more

Considering a war with Iran:A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East

There is considerable international discussion that the confrontation between Iran and
the international community over its nuclear programme may change in character into
a major war between Iran and either US or Israel or both in conjunction with allies
such as the United Kingdom. This study uses open source analysis to outline what the military option might involve
if it were picked up off the table and put into action. The study demonstrates that an
attack can be massive and launched with surprise rather than merely a contingency
plan needing months if not years of preparation.
The study considers the potential for US and allied war on Iran and the attitude of key
states. The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to
destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and
economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush
giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to
deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option
of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping
Iran’s actions.
• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground
invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many
retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little
force and leave the regime intact.
• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets
in Iran in a few hours.
• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan
can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed
popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic
areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to
prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK
and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be
devastating, while their military value is limited.
• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the
conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.
• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public
opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an
attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that
Iran must not acquire the bomb.
• Short and long term human, political and economic consequences of any war
require innovative approaches to prevent the crisis becoming war.

Read this PDF (80 pages)

Or an excellent excerpt here

The darkest of all suspicions about Rumsfeld’s postwar strategy

Picphoto090107rumsfeld Why the Administration may have purposely encouraged looting after the fall of Baghdad.

Over the last four years, I have been personally conflicted over which was more outrageously horrible: the decision to go to war in the first place, or the manner in which postwar planning was executed?  Both were bad, no doubt there.  But there was something said about the latter last night on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher that jolted my emotions.  Let me say that as someone that follows politics on a daily basis, I am rarely shocked.  But what I heard last night personally disturbed me, and will get all of you grinding your teeth.

Read more

From Missouri to Natanz: US Global Strike Capability

Noam Ophir

Recent years have seen a substantial change in US power projection capability. For decades this capability was based on the use of aircraft carriers; now the US possesses the unique capability of executing an extensive, intercontinental attack without the need to operate from foreign territory. An American attack on Iran, if executed, could possibly be the first significant demonstration of this capability. The next stage will be the ability to carry out such an operation within a shorter response time than is currently possible.  

 Aircraft carriers and their escort ships have been a dominant component in almost every American military action since the end of the Second World War. To many observers, the aircraft carrier, perhaps more than anything else, has been a symbol of US military might. Even today, when voices are heard speculating over a possible US military action against Iran, the natural tendency is to check how many aircraft carriers are situated in the Persian Gulf. Modifications in the deployment and numbers of aircraft carriers are perceived as essential data with regard to US preparedness for launching a military action.

            However in recent years the US has been involved in an ongoing process that will change the current state of affairs. In fact, already today aircraft carrier deployment is not necessarily a key indicator of US operational preparedness. Instead, a possible American military move against Iran is likely to rely on forces stationed in the US itself and on weapons whose locations would be disclosed only after opening fire. These capabilities have been employed in the past, but they are gradually playing an increasingly central role in US combat plans. At this stage advanced US power projection capability is still being developed; however, if all goes according to plan, within a decade – and perhaps sooner – the US is expected to undergo a revolutionary change on this level.

Read more