Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
I have criticized my Republican Senator, Mark Kirk, on many occasions for not understanding even the basics of Monetary Sovereignty, yet voting on economic bills that would hurt his constituents — at least, the less wealthy 99%.
I have accused him of blindly following the Republican leaders, who repeatedly act against the interests of the poor and middle classes of America.
Well, though that may have been true of his economics, it does not seem to be true of his belief in Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Recently, I wrote to him, complaining about the panic-driven, politics-driven, Republican-driven* [see below] Defense Authorization act in which the military can arrest anyone they darn well please, for any reason or for no reason at all.
According to this bill, the military could drag you off the street, and clap you in prison, and even deny you council — clear violations of the United States Constitution — and not even say why.
(I’m old enough to remember the Japanese-American citizens being trundled off to concentration camps, because they were biologically related to Japanese — another American disgrace, this one by a Democrat.)
Because Senator Kirk is a Republican, and you know how patriotic they say they are, I assumed he was part of this monstrosity. I was wrong. Here is what he wrote to me:
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the detainee provisions in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate learning your thoughts on this important matter and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Since enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the role of the U.S. military in enforcing our domestic laws inside the United States has been very limited. During the week of November 28, the Senate considered S.1867, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation includes sections specifically authorizing our military to arrest and detain anyone, including U.S. citizens inside America, who the President suspects may be connected to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
In my view, American citizens inside this country have inalienable Constitutional rights that can only be removed by a civilian jury of your peers. Others argue that America is a “battlefield” where the President should have the power to order our military to seize U.S. citizens in this country on a suspicion that they may back terror.
Under the Declaration of Independence, Americans were promised rights against the State that were “inalienable”, i.e. no future President or Congress could ever take them away.
Under our Constitution, your rights are defined:
— You are promised that the trial of ” all crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury “.
— You cannot ” be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court “.
— Under the Fourth Amendment, you are ” secure in [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures “. This right ” shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause “.
— Under the Fifth Amendment, you cannot be ” held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury “.
— Under the Sixth Amendment, you have a right to a ” speedy trail “.
— Under the 14th Amendment, ” no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States “.
In my view, the Senate bill violates your basic rights, guaranteed to you by our Constitution. Rather than forcing the state to prove your guilt by a unanimous vote of a jury “beyond the shadow of a doubt”, this law allows you only one petition to a civilian court under a writ of habeas corpus, then allowing a military court to hold U.S. citizens by only a “preponderance of the evidence”.
The last time Congress enacted a law allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was during the McCarthy era. Passed over President Truman’s veto in 1950, the “Emergency Detention Act” authorized indefinite detention of Americans likely to commit espionage or sabotage. Fortunately, this authority was never used and President Nixon signed the repeal of this law in 1971. His repeal stated that “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”.
The detention authority of the Senate bill would roll back decades of protections for U.S. citizens. While the U.S. military has and should keep the power to detain or even attack Americans serving in foreign armies or terrorist organizations overseas (like Anwar al Awlaki who fought the U.S. from a terrorist base in Yemen), the U.S. military should not be authorized to arrest and detain U.S. citizens based on activity conducted in the United States. That is the mission of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, state and local law enforcement. Americans who are arrested should never lose their constitutional rights until they are convicted in a civilian court by a jury of their peers.
In the Senate, I voted for three amendments that strike or limit the scope of these provisions. Amendment 1107, introduced by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), would have struck Sections 1031 and 1032, but it was defeated by a vote of 38 to 60. I also supported Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment 1125 that would have eliminated the military’s power to arrest and detain U.S. citizens inside America. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 45 to 55. In the end, the Senate adopted another amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, stating that this bill does not expand authority to apprehend and detain U.S. citizens in the United States – a thin cover for our basic rights.
President Obama said that he would veto this legislation if it contains overly broad powers for the U.S. military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He is right on this issue and I will support his veto on this question.
The remainder of this long piece of legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, is beneficial for the country. The bill provides a pay increase for Americans in uniform. It fully funds special operations forces across the world. It also helps clean up troubled and wasteful defense construction and procurement programs. The bill also contains the Menendez-Kirk amendment, passed by a vote of 100-0, to impose crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran in an effort to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Therefore, I voted to move the bill forward to a House-Senate conference, secure in knowing that the President will be able to strike the provisions I outlined on our rights while advancing the provisions I outlined just above.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at (312) 886-3506 or on line at http://kirk.senate.gov if you have any questions or concerns before Congress or the federal government. It is an honor to serve you in the Senate.
Very truly yours,
I commend Senator Kirk for standing up to the very jerks who love to wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism, while defiling the Constitution and harming Americans. That took intelligence and courage. This is especially commendable, because there is no doubt the people affected would be part of the “hated” (by Tea/Republicans) 99%. I suspect no one in the 1% will be arrested by the military. They have good lawyers.
Now Senator, if only you would display the same intelligence and courage with regard to understanding Monetary Sovereignty. You again could stand up to the jerks who would send this nation into another depression.
*While virtually the entire Senate voted for the bill, it primarily was the Republicans who voted against Amendments 1107 and 1125, which would have eliminated the unconstitutional parts of the bill. If this bill goes to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see what the right wing, Constitutional “originalists” have to say.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports