Thursday, October 4, 2018
Saturday, May 19, 2018
ON BEING 'CONTROVERSIAL': MY 'BARACK OBAMA-MUSLIM APOSTATE?' OPED AND THE AFTERMATH
My first op-ed (Barack Obama- Muslim Apostate?) ended my chances of an academic career.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0519/p09s02-coop.html
I kid you not.
Why?
Because I wrote an oped that went viral globally and endured abuse and threats from various quarters. But that wasn't the real reason I suspect. The reason: How dare I depict our soon-to-be first Black American President in a poor light! I must be a racist, Islamophobe, homophobe, elitist, capitalist, zionist, populist, misogynist, ad nauseum. In short, persona non grata in the eyes of academics who adored Obama for some reason.
Why did I write this oped 'Barack Obama-Muslim Apostate? For Al Qaeda the answer, and the implication, is clear'? published in the reputable Christian Science Monitor. The reasons really had little to do with Obama actually.
THE STORY BEHIND THE OP-ED
On December 27th 2007, Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Paksitan's first female Prime Minister (1988-90; 93-96) was assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. It was the second attempt by Pakistan's military via gullible proxies. This time they succeeded. The hosts of Osama bin Laden killed the woman who was calling them out, and was America's favorite to regain the premiership via the ballot box. Hiding OBL in Abbotabad wasn't something the military wanted her, as prime minister, to be privy to; nor the Americans for that matter.
On September 25th, 2007, Benazir Bhutto gave her last public address in America hosted by the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C. At the time I was working as a contractor with the US Marine Corps based out of Quantico. I attended her presentation and admired her courage for speaking truth to power vis-s-vis Pakistan's military apparatus. I was also a bit concerned (about her safety) and thought, notwithstanding her courage, it was a bit naive (or fatalistic) of her to be laying it all out to a Washington audience given what Pakistan's military apparatus is capable of. We were both familiar with it. Her, far more so.
After her presentation, I went up to speak to her. When I introduced myself, she met me like a long lost friend since my late father, a journalist, had been close to her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (a man who was hanged by the military junta under dubious circumstances), from the begining of Bhutto's political career. Notwithstanding her father's obvious flaws (I was no fan of him unlike my father who was loyal to the end), she was a devoted daughter. Something I could certainly relate to. It was the first, and last, time she hugged me as she left with my business card. After meeting her, I felt like I needed a shower. Although she was just another quintessential career politician with a corrupt past, I felt sorry for her. She seemed to have a death wish.
However, what she said that day was actually the truth spoken eloquently.
Here is her warning speech:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?201169-1/benazir-bhuttos-final-address-washington-dc-2007
Anyhow, something snapped in me. It was time to identify, in some sort of public forum, Pakistan's military's role in the rise of Al Qaeda, and its suspected role in hosting OBL.
BACKGROUND ON THE OPED
People have said Obama and I have similar backgrounds. I disagreed/disagree. Sure we are both --defacto- Muslims born to Muslim fathers. But his father was a dishonorable bigamist, and a violent alcoholic to boot. While my father, married to one woman (my mom) for over forty years, had led an honorable life, was a man of integrity who had never played the 'colonialist' card to get ahead. He was all about merit. Politically, we were never on the same sheet of music (he had drunk deep at the socialist ideological well at university in the 1930s), but the neat thing about my father was that he encouraged independent thought, even if he didn't agree with some of my views. His love had always been unconditional. Enough said.
Obama was the perfect canvas --not that there weren't genuine concerns on how his Presidency would impact relations with the Muslim world, especially since by calling himself a 'Christian' he was, in essence, declaring his 'apostasy'; a death penalty offense according Islamic doctrine (Shariah Law). Should he have any personal baggage, along with the 'apostasy' card, he'd be open up to all sorts of black mail and/or leveraging.
I wrote the oped in March of 2008. Sent it out to the NY Times, Christian Science Monitor (CSM), Washington Post, etc etc. No bites. In late April, CSM's wonderful op ed editor expressed possible interest but I had to understandably tweak it. NY Times and Washington Post turned it down. Imagine my surprise to read Edward Luttwak's "President Apostate?" in the New York Times on May 12! It sounded incredibly similar to my theme to the extent that when CSM published my oped "Barack Obama-Muslim Apostate?" on May 19th, I received emails angrily accusing me of plagiarism (I still have the submission emails --including the one I sent to NY Times).
The title took me aback. The editor of Christian Science Monitor chose it. Authors of opeds generally don't select the title. Thought it was a wee bit incendiary but then noted the NYT title. My preference ("Obama in Osama's Eyes: A Jihadi's Dream Candidate") was perhaps just as incendiary in the eyes of Obama's supporters (I wasn't one given his background and associations).
CONTENTS OF THE OPED
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0519/p09s02-coop.html
More on the contents later.
ON BECOMING A 'RECOVERING' ACADEMIC
Some, in hindsight, suggested that perhaps writing this op ed piece was a bad career move. Others --including a tenured professor friend of mine-- had mentioned that I shouldn't write anything 'controversial' as I searched for an academic position soon after completing my Phd in May of 2007. 'Stay below the radar...until you get tenure,' was the well meaning advice. But: WTH. Whatever happened to the pursuit of academic scholarship devoid of agendas (overt at least, the sub-conscious is another matter)?
Irrespective of the fact that the social sciences in America today have 'quotas' based on background, gender, ethnicity etc etc vice merit, I --as a female political scientist with a South Asian/Pushtun background-- should have had a fighting chance. I'd written a dissertation on a 'hot' topic (gender politics in the Muslim world), with the appropriate background (over 18 years living in the Muslim world), language skills etc etc. However, I would find out in my search for a tenured track position that I was persona non grata, especially amongst the feminists in academia.
Undeterred, I continued to apply for academic positions in political science departments commensurate with my academic training and expertise, specifically jobs that sought expertise in South Asia or the Middle East. Meanwhile to bolster my credentials, I wrote scholarly articles. As luck would have it, the article whittling process of scholarly journals is generally rigorous and involves blind peer review so merit still can level the playing field. Prestigious journals like Terrorism and Political Violence is one such example under the excellent stewardship of Dr David Rapoport. My article "Haram or Halal? Islamists' Use of Suicide Attacks as 'Jihad'" passed muster and was published by them as one of my first scholarly publications, for which I remain deeply grateful. Despite numerous scholarly articles and a book based on my dissertation (The Politics of State Intervention: Gender Politics in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran), I couldn't gain any traction in academia and, eventually, decided there was no point in any further scholarly articles, nor in applying for an academic position.
And, given the tragicomic state of affairs in academia today (social sciences), wherein often the lunatics seem to running the asylum thanks to a seemingly terrified stance of college administrations vis-a-vis ludicrous and vicious demands of a nasty vocal minority on campus these days, it may appear that there is indeed a silver lining.
See article:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Job-Hunts-From-Hell-/236635
PS: Due to a hectic schedule will return to explore the contents of said oped upon my return with an edit.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0519/p09s02-coop.html
I kid you not.
Why?
Because I wrote an oped that went viral globally and endured abuse and threats from various quarters. But that wasn't the real reason I suspect. The reason: How dare I depict our soon-to-be first Black American President in a poor light! I must be a racist, Islamophobe, homophobe, elitist, capitalist, zionist, populist, misogynist, ad nauseum. In short, persona non grata in the eyes of academics who adored Obama for some reason.
Why did I write this oped 'Barack Obama-Muslim Apostate? For Al Qaeda the answer, and the implication, is clear'? published in the reputable Christian Science Monitor. The reasons really had little to do with Obama actually.
THE STORY BEHIND THE OP-ED
On December 27th 2007, Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Paksitan's first female Prime Minister (1988-90; 93-96) was assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. It was the second attempt by Pakistan's military via gullible proxies. This time they succeeded. The hosts of Osama bin Laden killed the woman who was calling them out, and was America's favorite to regain the premiership via the ballot box. Hiding OBL in Abbotabad wasn't something the military wanted her, as prime minister, to be privy to; nor the Americans for that matter.
On September 25th, 2007, Benazir Bhutto gave her last public address in America hosted by the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C. At the time I was working as a contractor with the US Marine Corps based out of Quantico. I attended her presentation and admired her courage for speaking truth to power vis-s-vis Pakistan's military apparatus. I was also a bit concerned (about her safety) and thought, notwithstanding her courage, it was a bit naive (or fatalistic) of her to be laying it all out to a Washington audience given what Pakistan's military apparatus is capable of. We were both familiar with it. Her, far more so.
After her presentation, I went up to speak to her. When I introduced myself, she met me like a long lost friend since my late father, a journalist, had been close to her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (a man who was hanged by the military junta under dubious circumstances), from the begining of Bhutto's political career. Notwithstanding her father's obvious flaws (I was no fan of him unlike my father who was loyal to the end), she was a devoted daughter. Something I could certainly relate to. It was the first, and last, time she hugged me as she left with my business card. After meeting her, I felt like I needed a shower. Although she was just another quintessential career politician with a corrupt past, I felt sorry for her. She seemed to have a death wish.
However, what she said that day was actually the truth spoken eloquently.
Here is her warning speech:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?201169-1/benazir-bhuttos-final-address-washington-dc-2007
The first assassination attempt on Benazir occurred on October 19th, 2007. The day she returned to Pakistan to contest the election. Two bomb attacks on her entourage killed almost 200 and wounded hundreds. She survived having just climbed back inside the armored vehicle. The junta meant business yet, strangely, no major changes were made in her security. On December 27th, 2007, with the help of suicide bombers, and decoys, the military cleverly linked to the tribal belt (the usual fall guys), the mission was accomplished. This time her armored vehicle couldn't save this brave but tragic woman. Benazir outlived her father by three years. She was 54. ZA Bhutto, her father, was 51, when they hanged him in 1979 after a kangaroo court trial. In the interim, both her brothers died violently. Her elder brother purportedly at the instigation of her husband (and possibly Benazir herself). Her father's nemesis, Zia ul Haq was assassinated along with most of the top military brass on August 17, 1988. So Pakistan ain't no picnic.
Anyhow, something snapped in me. It was time to identify, in some sort of public forum, Pakistan's military's role in the rise of Al Qaeda, and its suspected role in hosting OBL.
BACKGROUND ON THE OPED
People have said Obama and I have similar backgrounds. I disagreed/disagree. Sure we are both --defacto- Muslims born to Muslim fathers. But his father was a dishonorable bigamist, and a violent alcoholic to boot. While my father, married to one woman (my mom) for over forty years, had led an honorable life, was a man of integrity who had never played the 'colonialist' card to get ahead. He was all about merit. Politically, we were never on the same sheet of music (he had drunk deep at the socialist ideological well at university in the 1930s), but the neat thing about my father was that he encouraged independent thought, even if he didn't agree with some of my views. His love had always been unconditional. Enough said.
Obama was the perfect canvas --not that there weren't genuine concerns on how his Presidency would impact relations with the Muslim world, especially since by calling himself a 'Christian' he was, in essence, declaring his 'apostasy'; a death penalty offense according Islamic doctrine (Shariah Law). Should he have any personal baggage, along with the 'apostasy' card, he'd be open up to all sorts of black mail and/or leveraging.
I wrote the oped in March of 2008. Sent it out to the NY Times, Christian Science Monitor (CSM), Washington Post, etc etc. No bites. In late April, CSM's wonderful op ed editor expressed possible interest but I had to understandably tweak it. NY Times and Washington Post turned it down. Imagine my surprise to read Edward Luttwak's "President Apostate?" in the New York Times on May 12! It sounded incredibly similar to my theme to the extent that when CSM published my oped "Barack Obama-Muslim Apostate?" on May 19th, I received emails angrily accusing me of plagiarism (I still have the submission emails --including the one I sent to NY Times).
The title took me aback. The editor of Christian Science Monitor chose it. Authors of opeds generally don't select the title. Thought it was a wee bit incendiary but then noted the NYT title. My preference ("Obama in Osama's Eyes: A Jihadi's Dream Candidate") was perhaps just as incendiary in the eyes of Obama's supporters (I wasn't one given his background and associations).
CONTENTS OF THE OPED
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0519/p09s02-coop.html
More on the contents later.
ON BECOMING A 'RECOVERING' ACADEMIC
Some, in hindsight, suggested that perhaps writing this op ed piece was a bad career move. Others --including a tenured professor friend of mine-- had mentioned that I shouldn't write anything 'controversial' as I searched for an academic position soon after completing my Phd in May of 2007. 'Stay below the radar...until you get tenure,' was the well meaning advice. But: WTH. Whatever happened to the pursuit of academic scholarship devoid of agendas (overt at least, the sub-conscious is another matter)?
Irrespective of the fact that the social sciences in America today have 'quotas' based on background, gender, ethnicity etc etc vice merit, I --as a female political scientist with a South Asian/Pushtun background-- should have had a fighting chance. I'd written a dissertation on a 'hot' topic (gender politics in the Muslim world), with the appropriate background (over 18 years living in the Muslim world), language skills etc etc. However, I would find out in my search for a tenured track position that I was persona non grata, especially amongst the feminists in academia.
Undeterred, I continued to apply for academic positions in political science departments commensurate with my academic training and expertise, specifically jobs that sought expertise in South Asia or the Middle East. Meanwhile to bolster my credentials, I wrote scholarly articles. As luck would have it, the article whittling process of scholarly journals is generally rigorous and involves blind peer review so merit still can level the playing field. Prestigious journals like Terrorism and Political Violence is one such example under the excellent stewardship of Dr David Rapoport. My article "Haram or Halal? Islamists' Use of Suicide Attacks as 'Jihad'" passed muster and was published by them as one of my first scholarly publications, for which I remain deeply grateful. Despite numerous scholarly articles and a book based on my dissertation (The Politics of State Intervention: Gender Politics in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran), I couldn't gain any traction in academia and, eventually, decided there was no point in any further scholarly articles, nor in applying for an academic position.
And, given the tragicomic state of affairs in academia today (social sciences), wherein often the lunatics seem to running the asylum thanks to a seemingly terrified stance of college administrations vis-a-vis ludicrous and vicious demands of a nasty vocal minority on campus these days, it may appear that there is indeed a silver lining.
See article:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Job-Hunts-From-Hell-/236635
PS: Due to a hectic schedule will return to explore the contents of said oped upon my return with an edit.
Friday, April 13, 2018
SYRIAN MADNESS: FALSE FLAGS AND AMERICA'S UNJUST INTERVENTION(S)
What the hell is going on in Washington?
Sure it is a daily cringe worthy soap opera which tarnishes America's global image. Being a laughing stock for exposing all our dirty laundry on an hourly basis via MSM, online, individual tweets etc. is one thing; but recent events --sabre rattling against Russia and Syria without careful thought-- suggests nothing has changed since the Bush II era. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt (which the Egyptian people managed to save via a peoples' revolution in 2013) and Syria. All epic disasters, playing right into the hands of our enemies (and they are quite a few, state and non-state, to include so-called "allies"). Bleeding us. Weakening us.
Exactly what Osama Bin Laden sought to do with the 9/11 attack.
Get us to overreact and get American troops mired in a quagmire(s) in the Muslim world in order to leverage for Al Qaeda and their paymasters agendas. Not to mention getting to fight other peoples' fights that we should prudently avoid if the stakes do not involve our specific American interests.
It is always easy for politicians to send others sons and daughters into harm's way. All this talk about honoring our military.
Which brings me to the question: Who Gains?
Certainly not the American people.
Eisenhower's prescient warning during his farewell address rings true over half a century later: we should avoid foreign misadventures and rein in our military industrial complex. The only war America has fought since WW II that can be argued to have been worth the pursuit was the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait. And, even that is stretching it a bit.
This is not a pacifist stance by any means. On the contrary, American foreign --defense-- policy should be based on pragmatic realism driven primarily by one question: how does a specific foreign (or domestic) action benefit the interests of these United States?
On Syria, sober thought would begin with a critical analysis involving the larger, historical, context which constitutes the Syrian crisis and the greater Middle East crises. Irresponsible saber rattling and sound bites can escalate, and the end results could do great harm to these United States and bolster the interests of our enemies.
Foreign intervention(s) that are antithetical to American interests must make our Founding Fathers turn in their respective graves.
Without going into specifics, just a quick assessment would suggest caution. The Assad regime has nothing to gain by killing a few civilians with so-called chemical agents. It would be a propaganda nightmare for a beseiged, friendless pariah regime. A public relations nightmare at a time when the Syrian government is winning. Da'ish/ISIS is on the run.
Given our reaction to the last "chemical" attack --at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017, just a week after the Trump administration announced it no longer sought regime change in Syria-- a replay seems to be a central component of a desperate entity (Da'ish/ISIS): a Da'ish false flag operation that leads the kuffar ('infidels') to do their (and their state paymasters) bidding: ouster of Bashar Assad and his government. Note this attack almost one year later at Douma (7 April 2018) came days after Trump announced on 3 April 2018 that America would pull out US troops from Syria. The pattern is quite clear. And, a preliminary investigation would exonerate the Assad government since these announcements bolster Assad's rule, not threaten it.
Who is behind this ill advised Washington sabre rattling? That is another question which needs to be raised.
It is foreign interests, not American ones, who seek to compel us to use our blood and treasure in order to attain their own interests. These entities do not seem to realize how precipitous this approach is. Those flippant (or blindly optimistic) about Syrian regime change, have not thought through the long term fall out for the entire Levant and beyond. A completely destabilized Syria (not that it is all that stable today thanks to us) would encourage the flood of refugees, the extermination of what's left of the Christian population (protected by the Assad government) of the Middle East, and the proliferation of Islamist terrorists.
President Trump ran on a platform that advocated getting America out of foreign misadventures that have cost us far too many lives and limbs (not to mention treasure). Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen were/are all "wars" that never rose to a WW II type of threat to our national security. If Trump continues Obama's policies, his base won't stand for it at election time.
If we really are serious about national security i.e. protecting our homeland from another 9/11, we need to get serious about internal measures starting with our visa system, entry mechanisms, and securing our border ASAP. That would be a prudent realistic endeavor to address our national security challenge as it pertains to the post 9/11 environment.
Trying to piss off the Russians and China simultaneously is sheer madness. Better yet, get inventive vis-a-vis dealing with these two entities. Making post-communist Russia an enemy vice an ally against the global forces that favor the type of authoritarianism inherent in communism is fools folly. This is the post-Cold War era. Russia is not the Soviet Union. NATO is a stumbling block to better relations with Russia which frankly should have eventually been abolished after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991. But that is a discussion left for another day.
Kudos to Tucker Carlson for daring to think and ask some pertinent questions on Syria:
Friday, February 2, 2018
SEDITION IN OUR REPUBLIC
THE NUNES MEMO:
TIP OF THE ICE BERG
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-exposes-abuse-power/1088772001/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5346375/Memo-reveals-Fusion-GPS-employed-wife-DOJ-official.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5346375/Memo-reveals-Fusion-GPS-employed-wife-DOJ-official.html
What has transpired is not a partisan issue as being readily depicted in MSM. Rather, these, and other, events raise serious concerns about the current health of our Republic.
KEY POINTS:
KEY POINTS:
1) The United States "watchers" (NSA, FBI, CIA etc) have become politicized.
2) This latest "co-option" attempt didn't begin in 2015 but has been a slow and steady progression which goes as far back to President Bill Clinton's first administration. It accelerated right after 9/11 (Patriot Act) and gained traction during Obama's administration.
3) Arguments/false concerns over "sources and methods" being revealed by unclassifying this memo by FBI et al ring hollow as exemplified by the contents of said memo. Nothing and NO ONE has been sacrificed/compromised by the release of what exactly transpired under the guise of "national security."
4) Redacting the names of those who engaged in seditious behavior and have thus violated their oath to the US Constitution, would have only served to embolden, and ensure, the continuation of a disturbing pattern of sedition which can best be described as a coup d'etat in slow motion against a duly elected President in a Constitutional Republic. The implications of what has been unfolding are truly frightening and not inconsequential for the long term survival of this Republic.
5) The very institution, the FBI, that is the lead LAW ENFORCEMENT agency has been compromised in that some of its employees have put selfish interest above their oath to serve honorably, and to follow the letter of the law. Not all of course by any measure but they will bear the brunt of the tarnishment. The FACT that NO ONE resigned in protest, or deemed it essential for the survival of this Republic to come forward and put country above self, speaks to how rotten the core has become. And it is a very large core.
6) When the senior "law enforcers" embark on a mission to ensure that the most corrupt and coopted candidate is elected, you know you've a very serious embedded structural problem in your Federal Government. When the very laws they are authorized to enforce are violated, what recourse do the citizenry have?
7) The entire "Russian collusion" narrative that is fueling the so-called Mueller investigation of President Trump has been like a smelly red herring. As they say: Follow the money.
8) It was never the Russians intervening in our election or surveilling a Presidential candidate's campaign headquarters. IT WAS OUR OWN "WATCHERS." The ones who have the power to spy on each and every one of us (which they certainly do with no compunction under the so-called "Patriot Act") in various ways. And, set the IRS on us when we dare to write about Benghazi on blogs or disclose our sensitive non-attribution briefs provided in a military college setting to Wired Magazine without permission in order to place a bull's eye on our foreheads, and to silence and intimidate us.
9) To reiterate, there was never any "Russian collusion" by the Trump Campaign. But there certainly was a British based one with the Clinton Campaign. The same mandarins in Washington were working with Christopher Steele, a MI-6 operative, and judging from the Steele fiasco and his pathetic "dossier" the question should be asked: Who is Christopher Steele? Any investigation must scrutinize this man to the extent that it leads them to those in the shadows here and abroad.
10) Congress will need to have the backbone to move towards exposing all to the American People. The people have this right. They also have the right to demand severe accountability and a massive overhaul of our "intelligence" infrastructure which has been compromised to such a degree by certain special interests (oligarhs of various backgrounds) at the expense of the larger good i.e. the people's interests. How we go about this is going to be like walking through an active minefield with snowshoes on.
I'm terrified of the implications. Have been for some time. You should be too.
P.S: The fact that the FBI found no wrongdoing when it was accidently uncovered that our former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal server for all her official State Department email, not to mention the numerous violations of her and her staff vis-a-vis handling (and unauthorized destruction) of CLASSIFIED materiel was one of many clues that Washington has been corrupted and there are one set of laws for the oligarchs and another for the minions. Truth is truly stranger than fiction.
P.P.S: Representative Devin Nunes is a very brave and honorable man. Support for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is deeply entrenched in Congress. FISA was introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy in 1978, and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. However, recent events underscore a need to revisit the constitutionality (and utility) of the secretive (and unaccountable) FISA Court. Critics, like Judge Napolitano, argue that such a secret court is unconstitutional. See his arguments against the FISA Court:
https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano/09/13/is-the-fisa-court-constitutional
NOTE: A German movie, with English sub-titles, called "The Lives of Others," hauntingly encapsulates life in a Police State, namely the German Democratic Republic in this case. There are many current, and former, "Republics" across the globe that are police states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), People's Republic of China, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea etc. Not all "Republics" are created equal and the slow, or rapid, descent into life in a Police State is a real possibility without constant oversight and vigilance with a particular focus on "the watchers" both in the public and the private sectors. The link to this movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/
P.S: The fact that the FBI found no wrongdoing when it was accidently uncovered that our former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal server for all her official State Department email, not to mention the numerous violations of her and her staff vis-a-vis handling (and unauthorized destruction) of CLASSIFIED materiel was one of many clues that Washington has been corrupted and there are one set of laws for the oligarchs and another for the minions. Truth is truly stranger than fiction.
P.P.S: Representative Devin Nunes is a very brave and honorable man. Support for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is deeply entrenched in Congress. FISA was introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy in 1978, and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. However, recent events underscore a need to revisit the constitutionality (and utility) of the secretive (and unaccountable) FISA Court. Critics, like Judge Napolitano, argue that such a secret court is unconstitutional. See his arguments against the FISA Court:
https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano/09/13/is-the-fisa-court-constitutional
NOTE: A German movie, with English sub-titles, called "The Lives of Others," hauntingly encapsulates life in a Police State, namely the German Democratic Republic in this case. There are many current, and former, "Republics" across the globe that are police states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), People's Republic of China, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea etc. Not all "Republics" are created equal and the slow, or rapid, descent into life in a Police State is a real possibility without constant oversight and vigilance with a particular focus on "the watchers" both in the public and the private sectors. The link to this movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)