The greatest danger of any centrally controlled system is the ease with which it can be hijacked by tyrants.

Isn’t this basically the point of Naomi Wolf’s book, The End of America?

Bob in AZ

It’s not inconceivable Ambassador Bolton was the stay behind/mole put there to subvert Powell. I would bet money he’s on the short list for National Security Adviser or Secretary of State whenever the Republicans end up in office again. He’s been very public since the election.

http://onlinejournal.com/artma…..5096.shtml

These are the architects of “regime change” — the psychopathic assertion that criminals are free to overthrow governments, murder civilians and steal the assets of sovereign nations — “because we can,” as Richard Cheney declared. In a sovereign nation governed by the rule of law, these subversives would have good reason to fear prosecution for treason and war crimes. Hence, the demolition of the US Constitution and re-engineering of law to provide themselves with immunity and crush political dissent.

Ethical minds do not conceive covert schemes to “march” humanity toward world dictatorship, nor plot the destruction of national sovereignty to rule the world. Human beings with a functioning conscience do not orchestrate mass murder, stage terrorist attacks, bankrupt economies and overthrow governments. These crimes against humanity are manifestations of criminal insanity. Delusions of grandeur, subversion, compulsive lying, larceny, kidnapping, torture and genocide indicate clinical symptoms of psychopathy and severe antisocial character disorders. [12]

The greatest danger of any centrally controlled system is the ease with which it can be hijacked by tyrants. That alone, is good reason to decentralize the global financial system, diversify national currencies and establish public control of money and credit within every nation state. International commitment to strengthening constitutional protection of civil liberties in every country must begin with repealing totalitarian “anti-terrorism” laws and dismantling the architecture of illegitimate “supranational sovereignty.”

This article is an excerpt from a more detailed work on the history of organized crime syndicates masquerading as the US government: nikkialexander.wordpress.com

Endnotes

Snip>

[12] In contrast to Hollywood’s inaccurate portrayal of psychopaths as blue-collar misfits who stalk young women and rob convenience stores, most psychopaths come from well-to-do families and are white-collar criminals who, because of their wealth and position, seldom face consequences. Psychopaths are devoid of conscience, incapable of compassion, accountability or remorse, lie routinely, manipulate and deceive, operate in secrecy, control and suppress information. They view themselves with grandiose self-importance and are flagrantly contemptuous of the law. Their craving for dominance over others propels them into the centers of power where they are overrepresented in the top ranks of corporations, politics, law enforcement, law firms and the media. Psychopathology research: http://www.ponerology.com.

exactly, but my point is that by debating effectiveness we are to an extent acknowledging it’s possible legitimate use. I think that’s a slippery slope. It’s like trying to argue whether or not universal genocide would end war or whether sterilizing criminals would reduce crime. We would never consider such things. And we should never consider torture. Whether or not it works should be beside the point.

Should be…but it isn’t for many people. Can you tell me of a single issue where ONLY moral considerations led people to make a revolutionary shift in terms of a like issue? Slavery? apartheid?Women’s suffrage? Have we ended war, clearly it’s immoral. Universal genocide (well besides the fact that it would eliminate everyone…a very pragmatic reason its not practiced…and genocide has been reduced because every thinking person realizes that they could be targetted by it…just like the “other”…plus there are major retraints (pragmatic) on those that would practice it. They haven’t been shifted by moral arguments…but judicial ones.

I suspect that enough people in the “Age of Reason” were persuaded by the ineffecacy of torture to swing over to bolster the “moralists” [and at the time the moral authority-the Church- was “pro-torture”…or at least not making sermons from the pulpit regarding this]. Remember that Britain had shifted religiously/politically back and forth several times, with those religionists and political supporters of the opposition tortured. The torture of “innocent” British traders at Amboyna in the East Indies became a cause celebre -leading to two wars with the Netherlands. Pragmatically it was difficult to declare torture reprehensible and to allow it to be performed on ones own subjects. It was a multiple-pronged assault- reason and moral- that ended torture in Britain (though it continued surrepticiously).

Even now one of the most powerful arguments against torture is “if you allow it…it will be used against your soldiers and citizens”. That really is the framework of the Geneva Con ventions Vs. Torture.

I really doubt almost everything KSM said under interrogation and a recent story by ABC highlights one false statement. Blog entry:
http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/…..edibility/

That’s BS. Would they accept a School vice-principal torturing their child to extract a confession about “who grafittied up the school toilet”? Would they say that some nutcase kidnapping a woman and torturing her in order to get her to accept a “marriage” is acceptable? Would the accept Whoever did that survey clearly summarized it wrongly or simply didn’t ask well-phrased Questions.

I suspect that what really is intended to be said here is “Only 1 out of 4 Americans are opposed to all forms of torture under all circumstances.” This would include people who a) think torture really does work- due to a variety of social propaganda like “24″, b) particularly in “ticking time bomb scenarios”, c) doesn’t produce long lasting psychological or physical damage, d) no other form of interrogation IS effective, more reliable or more accurate.

Those who are trying to convince people that torture is “morally wrong” probably are preaching to the choir. It’s unlikely that those with powerful moral Qualms already support torture. The bigger pool are those that believe some “greater good” was attained by the actions. Then there are the irrevocably lost who see any accused brown individual as guilty, and that torture is “punishment” not a means of interrogation at all.

I suspect the “moralist” POV is one not to end torture…but to hold themselves in a position of moral superiority over the “pragmatists”. But arguing from that position merely turns the “pragmatists” off…it implies that torture IS effective, has stopped imminent terrorist attacks, has high accuracy, etc. Only until these concerns are allayed will they shift.

The American Spirit has a dark side. The Constitution was meant to save us from ourselves.

Bob in AZ

And you cannot sweep this under the table, the bush years and their actions have cast a pall over this country that needs the light of truth, if we are ever to get past it. We ignore it at our peril.