By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.
Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.
The officials outlined the plans — the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama’s order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010, and satisfy congressional and public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil — on condition of anonymity because the options are under review.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Friday that no decisions have been made about the proposal. But the White House considers the courtroom-prison complex as the best among a series of bad options, an administration official said.
For months, government lawyers and senior officials at the Pentagon, Justice Department and the White House have struggled with how to close the internationally reviled U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo.
Congress has blocked $80 million intended to bring the detainees to the United States. Lawmakers want the administration to say how it plans to make the moves without putting Americans at risk.
The facility would operate as a hybrid prison system jointly operated by the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security.
Scott Silliman, director of Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, called the proposal “totally unprecedented” and said he doubts the plan would work without Congress’ involvement
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on July 2 it filed a motion with a special panel of three federal judges in the District of Columbia asking the court to declare Hillary Clinton ineligible to serve as Secretary of State.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed on behalf of a U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, maintains that the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Mrs. Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until January 2013, and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)).
Government lawyers had previously filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as a “cross motion for summary judgment.”
According to Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. However, as noted in the motion, “the ‘compensation and other emoluments’ of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, including as many as three times during the second, six-year term to which she was elected.”
Congress attempted to circumvent this constitutional provision by “rolling back” compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007, when Mrs. Clinton’s second term in the Senate began. The motion maintains: “This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the ‘compensation and other emoluments’ of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate.” Judicial Watch also notes that throughout the nation’s history, “the Ineligibility Clause was readily understood and applied consistent with its plain language.” Only relatively recently have government officials attempted to get around this constitutional provision through legislative quick fixes.
“Congress must not be allowed to do an end run around the U.S. Constitution,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton is ineligible to serve as Secretary of State until 2013. The Constitution is crystal clear on this point. We hope the court puts a stop to this naked attempt to circumvent the Constitution in the name of political expediency
Rep. Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, had a strong reaction to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about doing away with useless eaters “we don’t want to have too many of.” Pitts declared Ginsburg’s “eugenics way of thinking debases all human life” and he expressed shock that a Supreme Court justice would suggest certain categories of people are not worthy of life and should have been aborted.
On July 9, Infowars posted an article about Ginsburg’s comments that were contained in a New York Times interview. At the time, there was a prevailing and yet predictable silence on the part of the corporate media in response to the SCOTUS eugenicist.
“The mainstream media has been missing in action once again, by completely ignoring an astonishing comment made by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concerning the ostensible reasons — in her opinion, rooted in eugenics — for the ruling in Roe v. Wade,” John Kinsellagh wrote for the Examiner on July 13.
On July 14, a blog on the U.S. News & World Report website attempted to explain Ginsburg’s “curious comment.” Dan Gilgoff mentioned that “conservatives” have “pounced on the lines as evidence that Ginsburg supports eugenics, or selective human breeding.” Gilgoff added that there was “much less chatter about this on liberal blogs, but Media Matters argues that Ginsburg was speaking about public opinion about Roe and abortion, not about her own opinion.”
In other words, according to Media Matters, it is not Ginsberg who is the eugenicist, but the American people.
“Ginsburg isn’t 100 percent clear that she’s personally sympathetic to the view that abortion should be used to control the growth of certain populations,” Gilgoff concludes.
The notorious neocon editorialist Jonah Goldberg, writing for the Los Angeles Times on July 14, frames Ginsburg’s comments all too predictably. “One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations,” he writes. Goldberg should be lauded for mentioning eugenics and Margaret Sanger. However, the neocon is more interested in bashing so-called “liberals” (Goldberg considers himself a “conservative”) and less interested in exposing the fact that support for eugenics is not divided by political partisanship and is an exhaustively documented fetish of the ruling elite and their minions such as Ginsburg.
Goldberg cannot resist rolling Sonia Sotomayor into the mix. “I for one would like to know whether Ginsburg believes there were — or are — some populations in need of shrinking through abortion and whether she thinks such considerations have any place at the Supreme Court,” he writes. “And while we’re at it, it would be interesting to know what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks about such things.”
In fact, eugenics has nothing to do with Sonia Sotomayor, supposed liberals or self righteous neocon-conservatives like Jonah Goldberg — in the modern context, it was created and supported by the aristocratic and wealthy elite of America and Europe, the same people who created the false right-left paradigm Goldberg so predictably falls for (one might conclude it is his life’s calling).
As Daniel Taylor notes, modern eugenics was fostered primarily by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute and funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The office operated from Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed there. In 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation again gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee, while the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $250,000 to the Population Council, and $250,000 to the Population Institute.
Abortion is at the very center of the modern eugenics movement. “Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time,” declared Frederick Osborn of the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1973 (the organization had changed its name from the American Eugenics Society). “If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”
Osborn was put in charge of the Population Council, a group organized and funded by John D. Rockefeller III. In 1956, Osborn addressed the British eugenics society and affirmed his belief in “Galton’s dream” and proposed what he called “voluntary unconscious selection” by changing laws, customs and social expectations, according to Rebecca R. Messall. Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of the eugenics movement.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments provide a small window into the diabolical thinking of her masters. It is wholly predictable the corporate media and “liberal” and “conservative” bloggers have attempted to render it a political football instead of revealing the true nature of eugenics — it is the ultimate dream of the ruling elite to cull the useless eaters and the unwanted herd and political ideology is entirely secondary to the realization of their horrific and genocidal dream.
Recently, you might have witnessed Boxer’s unbelievable behavior during a committee hearing when she berated a U.S. General for having the tenacity to call her “ma’am,” insisting he use the title “Senator.”
Today, the President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce fought back and questioned what he felt were racial undertones in her statements at a hearing this morning.
Despite her efforts to cut him off, NBCC head Harry C. Alford persisted in asking why Boxer was equating a non-binding NAACP resolution favoring climate change legislation with the extensive, years-long research conducted by the NBCC on the negative economic impacts of her cap-and-tax efforts.
At least he didn’t try to call her ma’am though.
Please watch the video now and then forward this message on to five of your friends.
Undercover 4 Liberty 