Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, 1 September 2014

The United States Is Not a Democracy: From Wall Street to Detroit and Ferguson

Around the world another democracy has begun to manifest itself, one organized by people.
The United States is not a democracy. Occupy Wall Street announced this fact to the world with the 1% and inequality. The protests in Ferguson and Detroit are bringing it to the social and political spheres. Around the world another democracy has begun to manifest itself, one organized by people, from below, in plazas, parks, schools, workplaces and on street corners – a democracy where people are no longer silent and are beginning to take back control of their lives.
There are few, if any, real democracies. The United States however, is in many ways, the worst. It is a country that declares itself the most democratic in the world, and acts as the world police based on this assumption, yet there is absolutely no “rule of the people”. This truth is increasingly accepted by most people, even Princeton University published a study in April of this year attesting that not only is the United States not a democracy, but it most resembles an oligarchy. The report states, “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”[1]The Occupy Wall Street Movement in the U.S. and similar movements around the globe, from those in Greece, Brazil, Bosnia and the 15M in Spain all spoke and speak to this issue, whether using the concept of the 99% and 1% or the clear slogan No Nos Representan! (They Don’t Represent Us!). There seems to be general agreement that economic decisions are not made in a democratic way – almost anywhere. And while on the political and social front this has also been increasingly clear, it is now being brought into a more public conversation with the protests in Ferguson against the killing of another unarmed black youth, and the actions in Detroit against the cutting off of water to tens of thousand of families.
Millions continue to watch what is happening in Ferguson, with hundreds of cities and towns organizing protests and solidarity marches – against police brutality and the criminalization of young black men. Conversations, even in the mainstream media, are beginning to question the militarization of the police and use of deadly force against unarmed civilians. To not be able to walk freely in your neighborhood out of fear of being shot by the police, based on your race, and that this attack might be supported in the courts reflects a system that is a far cry from any democracy.
In Detroit, more acts of aggression are being carried out, again predominantly against African Americans. This time it is with people being denied access to water – cutting off water sources is often used as a tactic in war and is without a doubt an act of aggression. Over 15,000 homes have had their water cut off, in the height of the summer heat. While protests and direct actions temporarily put on hold the potential 300,000 more families at risk of loosing their water – those families are again at risk, with cut offs having resumed this week. Little explanation is needed here. A government that allows water to be shut off to families that have no other way to get it (collect or otherwise) is hardly one where the “people decide”.
The U.S. is not democratic. Increasingly people will agree to this, and people who are not politically active or involved. However the U.S. never was democratic, nor was it ever intended to be. In fact, a look at the “founding fathers” of modern liberal democracy reflects that fundamental democratic values, such as participation or popular sovereignty, have never been on the agenda of liberal democracy. Liberalism and democracy have been fierce enemies for hundreds of years. It was the exclusion of the social question from democratic decision-making that made the liberals accept democracy and create liberal democracy as the new form of governance of the emerging production model.
Nevertheless the idea of democracy has been a constant thread in the rule of the few with economic power, the 1%, if you will, since it can be used by critics of the existing order against their ruling interests. This is the reason why those who wield economic and political power, especially in times of crisis, as we are witnessing now in places such as the U.S, Greece, Spain and Turkey tend towards authoritarian rule and the suspension of civil and democratic rules and rights. Over the past few years the crisis of liberal democracy has become so evident that even bourgeois intellectuals cannot deny or oversee it anymore (see Princeton report). But their goal in criticizing liberal democracy is to both make the acceptance of a lack of democracy “normal” and mainstream as well as pave the way for authoritarian and less democratic forms of decision making for the sake of efficiency.
We are taught that there are certain generally shared assumptions and rights that we have as a fundamental part of liberal democracy, things such as limitations on the governments ability to restrict citizens movements and ideas, for governments not to have or use arbitrary power, that fair and free elections take place, and that civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, thought, religion, assembly etc. are respected. We are taught that these things exist and are grounded in the very nature of this democracy. But it is important to make clear those civil liberties and rights we do have are in no way an inherent part of liberal democracy. In fact they were won in long hard struggles, going back to the 19th century and took effect only after the enforcement of the new model of production. And upon closer examination, one can see that just as soon as most all of these “rights” or “liberties” were won, governments began trying to dismantle them, from the right to an eight hour work day in the US, to the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Volumes have been written about the encroachment of rights in modern democracies, and while many are outraged, and should be, the fact remains that these rights were never a fundamental part of the conception of liberal democracy.
As Beth, an activist in the anti-foreclosure movement, Occupy Homes Bernal in San Francisco puts it, “The metaphor of democracy and the story that’s woven around it is I think a very beautiful thing, but it never has been put in effect. It’s really been used as a kind of decoy to keep people’s attention and their fury away from the injustices that happen around democracy.”[2]
Since the 1980s, the hegemonic discourse has usurped the concept of participation and used it in a neoliberal frame to outsource the state’s responsibilities on an individual level and strengthen market logic. Nevertheless it is not participation if you can choose your private health insurance because public health has been dismantled and it is not participatory if parents have to take over certain tasks in schools or neighborhoods because the state does not guarantee them anymore. The decentralization of tasks to a local level without the necessary financial resources was also presented as “local participation” by neoliberal politics. It is obviously neither participatory nor democratic if for example certain social services are handed over to communities while the financial resources to finance the services are cut to a level that no longer guarantees a certain quality and range of the services.
The new global movements break with the above concepts of representation and “democracy” and turn their backs on these systems of false democracy while at the same time opening spaces to experiment with alternative and direct democratic processes – spaces where everyone is heard and can participate in decision-making. Democratic mass assemblies have been and continue to pop up all around the globe, from the US, Greece and Spain to Bosnia, Turkey and Brazil. As many participants in movements all over the world described it, the assembly, as a modality, came up intuitively. Marianna from Athens explained, “The assembly is something many of us knew from the university, it’s something that we do, something close to us – even with all its problems. So it came up naturally, ‘we discuss now and decide what we want to do’.” Gülşah Pilpil, Gezi Park activist in Istanbul, Turkey reflected, “Since Gezi Park was evicted people gather in other parks to talk, share and to produce new ideas. In the universities, forums and assemblies have been set up by academics, students and workers.” And, as Amador from Madrid specifies, “Democracy will start to include something like this, an open space for everyone, not a privatized space for those who have economic or political power, and certainly not a privatized space for professional politicians or activists, but a space open to everyone. Democracy would be to ensure that that space stays constantly open to everyone.”
Liberal democracy is not democratic. There is not one form of perfect democracy, but there are for sure many forms that are much more participatory and liberating than the one we have now. It is important to look to and participate in the alternative forms being developed and push them even further, such as going from an assembly of workers to a workplace take over, as has happened in a number of cities in Europe over the past year and has been going on in Latin America for over a decade, or going from demanding water not be shut off to community control of water, as occurred in parts of Cochabamba, Bolivia, or to go from protests against police brutality and harassment to community created and run police, as they have in Guerrero, Mexico. As the movements around the globe have been saying, Democracia Real Ya! (Real Democracy Now!) not as a demand, but as something we put into effect.
[2] All the quotations from movement participants, as well as some of the concepts discussed here come from the newly released book by Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzellini, They Can’t Represent Us!: Reinventing Democracy from Greece to Occupy (Verso 2014)
La nueva Televisión del Sur C.A.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Fajr Libya militants overrun capital Tripoli

377301_Benghazi-fighting
Conflicting reports coming out of Libya, where fierce clashes have been underway between rival militant groups for weeks, indicate that the capital, Tripoli, has fallen to the Fajr (Dawn) Libya gunmen.
Libya’s caretaker government has announced that most ministries and state-run institutions are now out of its control.
Attacks and looting have broken out across the city with the interior and electricity ministries and the prime minister’s office ransacked.
Tripoli was captured after a five-week battle, involving heavy and indiscriminate artillery bombardments between Fajr Libya militants and tribal fighters from Zintan, Warshafan and Warfallah militia groups.
Militants have also stormed Yarmouk refugee camp in Tripoli, which houses people from the northern town of Tawargha. Five residents are reported to have been kidnapped, with tribal elders appealing for the release of the hostages.
Elsewhere in Libya’s eastern restive city of Benghazi, heavy fighting drags on between forces loyal to renegade General Khalifa Haftar and the so-called Ansar al-Sharia, comprising armed Salafi militias.
The fatal clashes erupted on Saturday when Ansar al-Sharia men attempted to take control of an airport, which is currently in the hands of Haftar’s militia forces in the Benina area of Benghazi.
Reports indicate that 10 militiamen loyal to Haftar were killed and more than two dozen others injured when grad rockets struck the Benghazi airport amid the clashes.
Nearly three years after the fall of the former ruler, Muammar Gaddafi, in a popular uprising in 2011, Libya is still grappling with rising insecurity.
Armed militant groups, who have refused to lay down arms, are now turning their guns on each other in an attempt to dominate politics and the country’s vast oil resources.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Why Does ISIS Fit In So Perfectly With The PNAC Plan?

31 August 2014 22:46
daesh2
Here are some simple burning questions whose answers can only be described by the globalist plans for a new world order. These questions strike at the root of the question all of humanity is asking: Who is ISIS?
1. Where do they bank? Or do they have a money tree?
2. Where do they get their guns from? Bullets? Knives?
3. Where do they eat, how do they get their food?
4. Where do they sleep, where do they get toiletries?
5. Where is their military base? They DO stick together right?
6. Since we know where they are why can’t they simply be rounded up in a way that doesn’t involve any nation attacks? But wait …
7. Who is their leader and how did he learn to outsmart the world’s greatest military and outperform all generals in U.S. history?
8. How does ISIS avoid NSA surveillance?
9. How do they communicate and avoid all communication systems at the same time?
10. How do they avoid military and government satellite surveillance and tracking?
11. How does the mainstream media and all the CIA pundits on TV like Colonel Anthony Shaffer know so much about how dangerous ISIS is yet they know nothing else like where they got their weapons from or how they were created? Oh wait, how did Shaffer obtain his knowledge about them? Who specifically did he speak to?
12. Why is the (CIA) chain of command that ISIS responds to not reported by mainstream media?
13. When did the first ISIS meeting take place and why?
14. Why is the simple facts about the creation of ISIS so clear and documented in the alternative and worldwide media except in the tiny circle of Zionist companies that control Western media?
Here are a few more burning direct questions that all of humanity is really asking.
15. Why does everything ISIS does fit in so perfectly with the Bush Neocon Project For A New American Century? – Why does it fit in so perfectly with the globalist new world order plans like a perfect fitting shoe or glove??
16. Should this wide disconnect about the reporting of who ISIS is and how they were created and funded be the last straw for mainstream media?
17. Can the world afford to live in the Western mainstream media paradigm anymore?
As we contemplate these questions let us remember that the mainstream media in America is controlled by only 6 companies and all of them are on the same page when it comes to Israel, the global government agenda, the U.S./U.N. led new world order plans, the Project for a New American Century, the wishes of the Council on Foreign Relations and all CIA (Mossad) backed operations. It’s all part of the same story and the same paradigm.
So while the mainstream media continues to lie and spin stories designed to make you think that ISIS is a mysterious and dangerous gang whose defeating can only occur with more bombing of Iraq and illegal invasion of Syria, don’t forget that no “army” exists to make headline news that challenges massive empires without massive support. There are no trees that grow guns, bullets and other weapons, they must be supplied by someone. The same can be said about all resources including money, food, shelter, water and other basic needs of life. Everyone who works for a living and anyone who is struggling or has struggled financially to survive can appreciate this.
Let us not be fooled by artificially engineered Western media narratives that not only fit in perfectly with the globalists stated goals of taking over the Middle East clearly outlined in the Project For A New American Century paper titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. From a common sense point of view, it isn’t very difficult to see how the ongoing mainstream media narratives about ISIS no longer makes any financial or practical sense from a day-to-day/daily-living point of view.
Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists.
Bernie Suarez
Activist Post
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Why did the Islamic State behead the Sunni soldier first?


Mohammad al-Qaderi (R), a Lebanese solider kidnapped along with three other soldiers and a police officer by al-Nusra Front, celebrates with relatives and friends after his release on August 31, 2014, in the town of Ghazze in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. (Photo: AFP)
Published Monday, September 1, 2014
Was Sergeant Ali al-Sayyed really beheaded or not? Why has his fate not been confirmed yet? Is it logical for the radical Sunni group the Islamic State to execute a Sunni hostage? Why did it not behead a Shia soldier first instead? What message was the Islamic State trying to send? And finally, what prospects do negotiations with the group have?
Doubts continue to be cast on the reports about the beheading of kidnapped Lebanese army Sergeant Ali al-Sayyed, despite the impact on the feelings of his bereaved family. Has the son of the village of Fneideq been killed or not? This is a question that the Lebanese army has yet to answer.
On Sunday, Ibrahim Shaaban, one of the soldiers who have been released, said, “Al-Nusra Front told us Ali al-Sayyed was still alive,” but Sayyed was kidnapped by the Islamic State rather than al-Nusra. Though it is hard to substantiate this information, Shaaban’s revelation brought some relief to people in Fneideq, and restored some hope for his family, which had held funerary services for him.
The news of the beheading of a Lebanese soldier was preceded by statement from the Islamic State, threatening to “behead a soldier within 24 hours.” The statement was followed by two images posted on Twitter, purportedly showing the slain sergeant. The decapitated corpse was dressed in the same shirt Sayyed wore when he appeared in a video declaring his defection from the Lebanese army. Sayyed also appeared in another footage that the Muslim Scholars Association handed over to the prime minister, allegedly showing him and other kidnapped soldiers.

These are enemies hiding in the guise of religion, and their leaders are more sinister than the Syrian regime and all enemies. - Sheikh Adnan Umam

The story did not end here. On Saturday, a video was posted to YouTube showing a restrained man on the floor in front of masked gunmen, of whom one then addressed the Lebanese government saying, “This is a soldier of yours. If you continue haranguing the Sunnis in Lebanon, the fate of your soldiers will be like the fate of this soldier.” The man sitting on the ground, wearing military trousers, was moving in the manner of someone who is sobbing, but the background music added to the footage muffled his voice.
Al-Akhbar asked sources close to the emir of the Islamic State in Qalamoun Abu Talal al-Hamad whether or not the group had killed the Lebanese soldier. The sources answered, “We have nothing to do with all that is being published in the media. If the Lebanese government insists on not complying with us and on continuing to disbelieve us, they will see soon a second slaughtered soldier. They must believe.”
Before the video allegedly showing the beheading was shown by several media outlets, jihadist social media accounts posted the contents of a leaked phone conversation between Muslim Scholars Association member Sheikh Adnan Umama and an aide to salafi cleric Dai al-Islam al-Shahhal. In the conversation, Umama is heard commenting on the reports about the soldier’s beheading by saying, “Unfortunately, it’s true. These are enemies hiding in the guise of religion, and their leaders are more sinister than the Syrian regime and all enemies. They have started with us.”
Despite the campaign launched on social media sites by Islamic State sympathizers and affiliates against Sheikh Umama, who was in charge of the negotiations, a question is being raised now regarding Umama’s statement, “They have started with us,” meaning the Sunni community. Indeed, why has the Islamic State started by beheading a Sunni soldier ahead of those who belong to other religious communities?
According to sources, the Islamic State based its choice on both sharia-related and political grounds. Politically, the Islamic State has judged that “killing a Shia soldier would not serve their cause like killing a Sunni soldier would, and would backfire because it would push Shia to rally around Hezbollah even more,” with the argument being that “the cohesion of the Shia and their unity behind their cause is stronger than among the Sunnis, who are weak and divided.”
This was more or less the same logic for al-Nusra Front, which released six Sunni soldiers it had captured to gain Sunni support. Al-Nusra followed this with a political statement titled:
“O Sunnis: You are of us and we are of you.”
In terms of Sharia-related arguments, which are the main benchmark for most of these groups, the idea is that “Lebanese Sunni soldiers are apostates, while Shia are infidels,” with the punishment for the first being death, in a way that supersedes punishment for infidels. According to sources close to the Islamic State in Qalamoun, the group sees “Shia are infidels, with a blasphemous doctrine.” By contrast, Sunni soldiers are originally Muslims who, by joining the army, have committed an act of apostasy. To be sure, the army in the group’s perception is a “satanic entity that must be opposed, declared as infidel, and fought, and joining it removes one from the community of Muslims.”
Since Sunni soldiers became apostates after being originally Muslim, they are punishable by death, in a way that supersedes the priority for fighting infidels. According to the ideological principles of this group, “Shia cannot be invited to repent and are not allowed to convert to Islam, and therefore, the only solution for them is death,” though this comes second after killing Sunni apostates.
When asked why the group has barred repenting when God allows it, the sources responded with the Quranic verse,
“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But Allah guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind. In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot…those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have gone astray.”
They also rely on the biography of the “rightly guided caliphs, specifically the first Caliph Abu Bakr, who stopped campaigns against infidels to fight apostates who had renounced Islam after the Prophet’s death.”
Follow Radwan Mortada on Twitter: @radwanmortada
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition
RELATED.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

ISIS is intended to be a provocative agent, giving the West justification to enter countries that are considered a threat to Israel

Is ‘IS’ a CIA-Mossad Creation?

35_ISIS
By Pete Papaherakles —
The leader of the radical Islamic State (IS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been reputed to be a Mossad-trained operative whose real name is Elliot Shimon, the son of Jewish parents.
This information is said to have originated from 1.7 million pages of top-secret documents recently released by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and made public by Iranian intelligence. Arabic Internet radio website “Ajyal.com” and the Arabic news website “Egy-press” were also early sources before the news went viral. Although it cannot be conclusively verified at this point, evidence points in that direction.
IS remains an enigma, as it seems to change names every week. First proclaimed the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, it soon became the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, then became simply Islamic State and finally the Islamic Caliphate with the stated goal of conquering half the world in five years from India to Portugal.
The official story about al-Baghdadi is that he was born near Samara, Iraq, in 1971. He is reputed to have earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Islamic studies from the university of Baghdad and was a cleric at a major mosque in Samara during the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
He was given the title of  Emir Daash and went by the false name of Ibrahim ibn Awad ibn Ibrahim Al Al Badri Arradoui Hoseini.
Donate to us
The leaked documents purportedly revealed that al-Baghdadi took intensive military training for a year from Mossad as well as courses in theology and Arabic speech.
Al-Baghdadi was reportedly a “civilian internee” at Camp Bucca, a United States military detention facility near Umm Qasr, Iraq. Key members of IS were also trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and U.S. Special Forces command at a secret camp in Jordan in 2012, near the Syrian and Iraqi border, according to Jordanian officials.
Some evidence suggests that al-Baghdadi may have been mind-controlled while held prisoner by the U.S. military in Iraq.
Nabil Na’eem, the founder of the Islamic Democratic Jihad Party and former top al-Qaeda commander has said that all current al-Qaeda affiliates, including ISIS, work for the CIA.
A recently released photograph shows al-Baghdadi along with half a dozen others, including Syrian rebel General Salim Idris, attending a secret meeting with neocon Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) in Syria in June 2013. A second photo shows al-Baghdadi posing with McCain and another “rebel.” McCain was instrumental in supporting terrorist forces fighting the Syrian government.
The Snowden documents supposedly reveal that British, American and Israeli intelligence worked together to create IS, “a terrorist organization capable of centralizing all extremist actions across the world,” using a strategy called Hornet’s Nest designed to “protect Israel.” According to the documents, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state is to create an enemy near its borders.”
After gathering the most fanatical terrorists in the world in one place, a veritable army of real terror was formed and filled with bloodthirsty murderers, who film their atrocities and post them to the Internet.
On August 19 IS posted a video that apparently shows an IS fighter beheading the American photojournalist James Wright Foley, in a message to the U.S. to end its intervention in Iraq. 
IS is intended to be a provocative agent, which gives the West the justification to enter countries that are considered a threat to Israel in order to destroy them. This would then give Israel the opening it needs to take over a large swath of the Middle East and establish the Zionist dream of “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates.
AFP Newpaper Banner
Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=19176#sthash.BEqinheF.dpuf
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

USA Police State: Military Plans to Crush Dissident Political Groups, Target Leaders with Sniper Fire

Global Research, August 31, 2014
World Socialist Web Site 30 August 2014

policestateLinks tweeted by WikiLeaks this week called attention to the development of crowd control doctrines by the US military, the most recent of which are codified in a US Army Techniques document dated April 2014, titled “Civil Disturbances.” Main concepts elaborated in the document include crowd dynamics, behavior theories, crowd types, and a “Graduated Response Matrix.”
The document points to various dissident political groups as main targets of the Army’s crowd control planning. “Examples of well-organized groups are anarchists, antiglobalization groups, and anti free enterprise groups,” the US Army document states.
The paper further cites demonstrations coordinated by labor groups, specifically citing the 2011 protests at the Wisconsin capitol. “Labor unions played a large role in the 2011 Wisconsin protests that included passing on information and transporting participants,” the document states.
Special attention is given to “organized protests,” which are said to have more growth potential than spontaneous protests as result of their “centralized planning” and use of “modern technologies that allow for rapid information dissemination.”
Techniques outlined in the document include the use non-lethal weapons, “pain compliance” measures, lethal overwatch teams (snipers), and deployment of aircraft overhead (said to have a “psychological effect”).
The use of military working dog (MWD) teams is highlighted as an especially effective “intimidation measure.” “The presence of the MWD may produce a profound psychological effect on the crowd,” the document states.
The document calls for deployment of “overwatch” sniper teams to intimidate crowds and pick off suspected leaders and organizers. Such use of snipers to terrorize demonstrators, recently on display in Ferguson, Missouri, where protests against the killing of Michael Brown were subject to a massive crackdown by militarized police forces, is part of the Army’s integrated Graduated Response Matrix (GRM). The GRM provides for numerous levels of escalating psychological and physical pressure against a targeted crowd, including:
* Exploit the psychological effect of shows of force.
* Escalate the Military Information Support Operations (MISO) message via loudspeakers and handbills—MISO is a more recently adopted military term for psychological operations (PSYOPS).
* Demonstrate sniper precision strike capability.
* Use riot control ammunition: tear gas, pepper spray, smoke bombs, stun grenades, rubber munitions, acoustic weapons, electro-muscular disruption weapons.
* Move through the crowd using riot control formations and movement techniques.
* Target leaders and “troublemakers” with sniper fire.
* Escalate from single shot small caliber fire to automatic large caliber.
* Close air support and indirect fire (artillery, mortars).
While stating that “coercion dispersal” of crowds may become necessary, the document notes that “negotiated management of crowds … is the preferred method especially if the demonstration or protest leaders are available and willing to participate,” and advises commanders to adhere to the “goldilocks principle,” saying crowd control activities should be “neither too hard nor too soft.”
The document also calls for the use of “high powered cameras mounted on towers and aerial vehicles” to create video recordings of both the crowd and the soldiers engaged in crowd control operations.
Ominously, the document outlines conditions under which the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of the US military for police actions on American soil, will not apply. Under a range of loosely defined “exceptional” conditions, the military can conduct unrestrained operations within the United States, the document notes.
In “emergency extraordinary circumstances,” including vaguely defined contingencies such as “unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the authority of the United States,” US military commanders are empowered to carry out, without requiring any form of civilian authorization, “activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances,” the document states.
Such sophisticated crowd control doctrines are an expression of the far advanced preparations by the US ruling elite, dating back decades, to establish martial law and transition to a police state dictatorship.
Congressional hearings in May of 1987 on the Iran-Contra scandal exposed plans, codenamed Operation Rex ’84, to suspend the US Constitution, transfer power to a shadow dictatorship consisting of agents of the military and intelligence apparatus, and conduct mass roundups of hundreds of thousands of political opponents of the American state.
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration implemented “continuity of government” (COG) procedures virtually identical to those laid out by Operation Rex, establishing a secret network of anonymous officials working from “undisclosed secure locations.” Without any consultation with or involvement of the legislative and judicial branches, between 75 and 150 members of the executive branch were ensconced in military bunkers and legal documents were drawn up to empower these officials with authoritarian powers.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!