[EMPIRE VAMPIRE Tattler]
Close Ranks Spiritually - Spread Out Tactically
~ Find the Enemie's Agents ~
Know the Enemy, for Your Safety
bits of wisdom from:
Stepping through the Minefields:
notes from: Wisdom of the Armchair General
~ by cyber Tacticus
=
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8315
Top Neocon Calls For Destruction Of Constitution
Lee Rogers
http://www.roguegovernment.com/images/8315/bobbitt.jpg
In a recent edition of the Austin-American Statesman
a book review of Phillip Bobbitts new book Terror and Consent
goes into how the book calls for the shredding of the Constitution.
The article written by James E. McWilliams features an image
of the Constitution being torn with a big bold headline
that states Everything must go.
The words How to Fight Terrorism,
are put in place of where
the Constitution is torn.
The article is blatant propaganda to make people think that
the answer to fight terrorism is to destroy the Constitution.
As disgusting as this is, the contents of Bobbitts book advocates
exactly what the picture depicts. Bobbitt endorses using
non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations
to take over the roles and functions of nation states.
He also endorses giving the United Nations the authority
to wage war without approval from the Security Council
and the use of non-lethal chemical weapons to fight terrorism.
If he really wanted to end terrorism using non-lethal chemical weapons,
he should be endorsing the use of non-lethal chemical weapons
on the headquarters of the CIA, British Intelligence and Mossad
because thats where the majority of terrorism comes from.
Of course, Bobbitt won't mention that fact.
Lets look at a blurb from the Austin-American Statesman article that gets
into some of the things that Bobbitt endorses in his book. Bobbitts
previous book, "The Shield of Achilles," explored the grand themes of warfare
and state development, marking his penchant for the magnum opus. At nearly
700 pages (including more than 100 pages of notes), "Terror and Consent"
follows suit, taking on a similarly big picture. If "we want to defeat
state-shattering terror in the twenty-first century," Bobbitt writes, we
will have to "Transform the Emerging Constitutional Order of the
twenty-first century State." Specifically, we must stop thinking like a
nation state and start thinking like the "market state" that we are
inevitably becoming. The nation state a constitutional order dedicated
to protecting and improving the material welfare of its citizens served
the United States well from the mid-19th century to the end of the
Cold War. But Bobbitt contends its vulnerable to a new battery of
threats. The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization
of international capital and the "universalization of culture" have eroded
the conventional borders that once legitimated national security. Whats
needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues from
multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, relying "less
on law and regulation and more on market incentives" to expand peoples
options. Such a market state keeps its finger on the pulse of consumer
demand, advocates trade liberalization, is prone to the privatization of
public works and "will outsource many functions." In the seminar rooms
of political science departments this change is referred to as
"neoliberalism" (on the streets, it is known as "globalization") and
Bobbitt, who is a geopolitical realist, believes we have no choice but to
embrace it.
Simply put, Bobbitt is endorsing what the Elites have Long Sought After
and thats a New World Order or a global government. Bobbitt advocates
the destruction of the Constitution and the transfer of power to
multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations. This man is a
traitor. In the New World Order that the elites envision, people will
only have the illusion of choice via phony democratic rule. Real decisions
will be made by multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations
behind the scenes. Unfortunately, what Bobbitt advocates is already happening
considering initiatives such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership
which seeks to dissolve the national borders between Canada, United States
and Mexico. Bobbitt also endorses preemptive use of force by the United
Nations without a Security Council authorization as well as the use of
non-lethal chemical weapons to prevent terrorism. This is
confirmed from a blurb in the Austin-American Statesman. Bobbitt
believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of
force without a Security Council authorization, that the Geneva Conventions
should be changed to forbid the indefinite containment of terrorist prisoners
without trial and that we must, in cases in which the use of non-lethal
chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such
methods as "counterforce measures." What is not mentioned in the article
is what sort of non-lethal weapons he would advocate using. Considering that
the public is having pharmaceutical drugs and fluoride dumped in their water,
mercury put in their vaccines, pesticides sprayed over populated areas and
all sorts of other horrors one has to ask if Bobbitt would endorse these
methods to fight terrorism? The war on terror is a proven fraud which
makes Bobbitts book entirely irrelevant. He bases
all of his conclusions off of something that is a lie. Bobbitt also
refuses to acknowledge mainstream history which shows that anytime power is
concentrated in the hands of a few it always turns out badly. Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the New World Order is
seeking to gain absolute power. If they are successful in achieving this,
we will see a tyranny like no other. The New World Order will be a global
enslavement system in which advanced technology is used to dominate the
people of the world. It is disgusting that Bobbitt prefers a system that
concentrates power in the hands of the unelected few over the freedom and
inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It is insane to say
that the Constitution is outdated and a new form of governance is required in
the 21st century. Free speech, the right to bear arms, the right not to have
your home searched and personal belongings seized without
a warrant are concepts that are just as applicable in the 21st century as
they were in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Bobbitt is an elitist
hack and a traitor for the statements he is making in his book. While
he has every right to say these things under the First Amendment, his
statements undermines everything that has made this country special.
What he doesnt realize is that the New World Order will dispose of him like
they will everyone else when they see that he is of no further use to their
insanely corrupt and tyrannical system. Bobbitt is nothing more than
another Useful Idiot for the New World Order enslavement system and he
isnt as smart as he thinks he is. Below is Bobbitts contact information
if youd like to express your displeasure at his anti-American and pro-NWO
statements. Phone: (512) 232-1376
Fax: (512) 471-6988
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/books/03/30/0330bobbitt.html
'Terror and Consent':
brilliant, contrarian
By James E. McWilliams
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Sunday, March 30, 2008
During the course of a long, intellectually demanding narrative,
"Terror and Consent" pivots on several paradigm-shifting claims.
One of them, which appears in the introduction, stands out
for its humanitarian implications:
"During the era of twentieth century industrial nation states ...
80 percent of the dead and wounded in warfare were civilians."
For Philip Bobbitt, a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at
the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University,
this is more than a gee-whiz factoid. It's the basis upon which
he advances an ambitious argument for fighting the wars
that are bound to plague the 21st century.
The prospect that the good old industrial nation state
is a shrinking violet might rankle patriotic flag-wavers.
But Bobbitt's statistic thrusts home an unsettling question:
What does it say about the nation state that it has so often
failed to provide, in the words of British statesman Douglas Hurd,
"the security, prosperity, and the decent environment
which the citizens demand"? Might it be time for something new?
In Bobbitt's view, the current wars against terror provide
a shrill wake-up call to confront this question.
The best way to protect citizens of modern democracies,
he claims, is to fundamentally rethink the nation state
as the guarantor of the freedoms that terrorists intend to obliterate.
Bobbitt's previous book, "The Shield of Achilles," explored
the grand themes of warfare and state development,
marking his penchant for the magnum opus.
At nearly 700 pages (including more than 100 pages of notes),
"Terror and Consent" follows suit, taking on a similarly big picture.
If "we want to defeat state-shattering terror in the twenty-first century,"
Bobbitt writes, we will have to
"transform the emerging constitutional order of the twenty-first century
State."
Specifically, we must stop thinking like a nation state and
start thinking like the "market state" that we are inevitably becoming.
The nation state a constitutional order dedicated to protecting
and improving the material welfare of its citizens
served the United States well from the mid-19th century
to the end of the Cold War. But Bobbitt contends it's vulnerable
to a new battery of threats. The accessibility of weapons
of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital
and the "universalization of culture" have eroded
the conventional borders that once legitimated national security.
What's needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues
from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations,
relying "less on law and regulation and more on market incentives"
to expand people's options.
Such a market state keeps its finger on the pulse
of consumer demand, advocates trade liberalization,
is prone to the privatization of public works and
"will outsource many functions." In the seminar rooms
of political science departments this change is referred to
as "neoliberalism" (on the streets, it is known as "globalization")
and Bobbitt, who is a geopolitical realist,
believes we have no choice but to embrace it.
The market state, Bobbitt contends, has great potential
for the cause of individual freedom, but it also has a dark side.
Global terrorism has already taken advantage of its ethos
of openness in order to undermine it. For example, the wide-open
arms market that neoliberalism endorses has allowed terrorists
to gain access to weapons of destruction that they then use
to destabilize legitimate market states. "Market state terrorism,"
Bobbitt explains, thus feeds on the "ardently sought innovations"
of the 20th century to exploit "the increasing vulnerability
of market states to catastrophic events."
"One cannot say," Bobbitt warns, "precisely how long we have."
What is to be done? This is not fear-mongering but rather
a sophisticated geopolitical assessment.
Therefore, a great deal rests on the solutions Bobbitt offers.
Fortunately, his suggestions are, if not entirely novel, largely sensible.
But they are ambitious to the point of being unachievable without
extraordinary political leadership and unprecedented corporate discipline.
First, Bobbitt argues that the market state must allow
the timeworn strategies of deterrence and containment to yield
to the more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare.
In an "epochal war," which we're in, market states share the
burden of employing power "preclusively rather than waiting for an
acute crisis to set in that irrevocably puts us at a disadvantage."
Venturing educated guesses about the behavior of future threats
is no one's idea of an ideal tactical strategy, but Bobbitt argues
that if we strengthen our alliances with other states,
networks of shared intelligence could do an impressive job of it.
Of course, this would require a more invasive process
of information gathering within and across national borders.
In order to reduce the threat to civil liberties this would entail,
Bobbitt highlights "(o)ur commitment to globalize the systems
of human rights and government by consent."
He insists that emerging market states must collectively,
out of "self respect," define and protect our inalienable rights.
What this means in concrete terms is that governments
"must rethink ideas like 'Homeland Security,' when the threats
to security cannot be neatly cabined as in or out of the homeland,"
that an "alliance of democracies" must form to discourage
isolationism and that the United States
must "change its role as hegemon" in NATO.
Only then can a consortium of neoliberal democracies
draw "a bright-line rule against the intentional infliction of pain
on any person detained by government," one of the many
human rights threats that Bobbitt believes we must address.
These developments the acceptance of preclusionary war,
the universalization of human rights hinge on a revamping
of international law. Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter
should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force
without a Security Council authorization,
that the Geneva Conventions should be changed
to forbid the indefinite containment of terrorist prisoners
without trial and that we must, in cases in which
the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used
to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods
as "counterforce measures."
The messy reality
These prescriptions provide a useful blueprint for fighting terror.
As with any blueprint, however, there is the messy reality
of filling in the details. Bobbitt presents his arguments persuasively;
there is nothing dumbed down about "Terror and Consent."
Nevertheless, one wonders if he concedes too much to the
many virtues of neoliberalism without fully appreciating
its negative impact. Two issues stand out.
First, Bobbitt admits that there will be no obvious answer
to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise.
In many situations, he explains, our only option is to vest faith
in properly formulated international and constitutional systems of law.
This sort of vagueness is frustrating, perhaps dangerously so.
Take one case that Bobbitt offers:
What should a market state do when an Islamic state
holds free elections that bring a bin Laden to power?
This situation, after all, presents allied market states
with a human rights quandary some sort of ethical corner
will have to be cut.
Bobbitt's approach to these kinds of problems is often
to dance a bit too delicately around them. He argues,
"States must measure their tactical and strategic policies
against the impact these policies are likely to have
on their legitimacy," and "Whether
(a) state is subject to intervention ... ought to be measured
by the relationship between the strategic interests of the states
of consent and the severity of the deprivations of human rights."
Both answers tell us we need to take measurements
but offer no ruler with which to do so.
Further left unexplored in this response is the possibility
that the market state offers a conception of inalienable rights
that it has not yet developed the means to protect.
One can't help but wonder, as globalization renders
millions of people vulnerable to human rights violations,
if the nation state and its emphasis on human welfare
should be so thoroughly dismissed.
Second, there is the matter that Bobbitt does not spend
much time addressing: the war in Iraq specifically,
the subcontracting tactics that a CEO president
and his corporate-modeled Cabinet have embraced.
The inefficiencies of Halliburton, the corruption of Bechtel
and the violence perpetuated by Blackwater call into question
Bobbitt's advocacy of privatizing public duties.
How does a market state draw "bright-line" rules
on human rights when the actors in charge of drawing
those lines hold privately funded erasers?
These questions, like so many others that this book poses,
lack easy answers. But the long century we face might demand
that we answer them not by choosing good over bad, but
as is usually the case in war and politics the lesser of evils.
If this is so, then "Terror and Consent" offers the most
we can expect from our blinkered vantage point:
a dauntingly learned and occasionally infuriating manifesto.
===========
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
