ASSANGE, VICTIM OF U.S. GOVERNMENT INJUSTICES  

by Joseph Zrnchik

 
 
We are now in uncharted waters and, as of this writing, it remains to be seen to what extent government will succumb to the rule of law, what level of injustice the people will tolerate and what crimes government will commit under the guise of international treaties, national security and justice.  As we have moved closer and closer to totalitarian rule with the state’s often petty interests superceding what had previously been pillars of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the recent atrocities have desensitized us to abuses of power to the extent that we now shrug our shoulders in quiet resignation as there is little that surprises us anymore.  Submission is the result of and objective for many of the abuses levied by government.  I will go into the story in depth and explain the charges, detail the inconsistencies, but first I would like to lay some groundwork.
 
America’s government is now officially a torture regime.  Its police revel in it, laugh about it and receive protection from a court system so putrid and corrupt that it disgusts anyone that has ever had contact with it.  Its robed villains are the gatekeepers of systematic oppression whose only concern is to protect and preserve state power while justice be damned.  Our court system has ruled that innocents tortured by government now have no legal recourse and has stated that those who authorize torture can not be called to account and have been given immunity for perpetrating what international treaties condemn and make illegal.  Our courts have actually issued opinions that say government officials are too busy to be expected to answer civilly for torture against innocents authorized and directed by government.  It then went on to say that no criminal charges could be filed regardless of how long even Americans citizens are held and tortured and held that evidence obtained through torture is admissible even though the entire world knows such Nazi tactics result in its victims saying whatever their tormentors want to hear.  The political establishment and government has gutted the Bill of Rights and made themselves enemies of the people.  As with the Kenneth Trentadue murder case in which he was mistaken for Richard Lee Guthrie, the individual the FBI identified as John Doe number 2 of the Murrah Federal Building bombing, he was tortured and murdered so horrendously that the FBI fought to have his body cremated immediately upon his murder while claiming it was a suicide.  The mistake in identity was made because Trentadue had a tattoo similar to Guthrie and was the same height, build, and complexion.  He was dead within two days after his being taken into custody.  When the FBI finally did get a hold of Richard Lee Guthrie he also became classified as a suicide on short order.  The only reason any of this got out was because Jesse Trentadue, Kenneth Trentadue’s brother, was a distinguished law professor and trial attorney.
 
The extent of the horrific injuries committed against Trentadue were shocking and this is a completely honest accounting of the injuries he suffered.  His head was smashed open in three locations, his neck was deeply cut, and he had severe bruises up and down both sides of his body to even include the bottoms of his feet.  He was injected with drugs specifically designed to make the torture he suffered unbearable and so not to lose consciousness. The blood splatter was so severe that even after the cover-up was initiated and the cell sanitized by a special team, blood evidence remained months later.  The courts ruled there could be no murder investigation because of the destruction of evidence.  There was a witness to the torture of Trentadue who also ended up “suicided” in his cell while under federal custody.  Moreover, the FBI then deleted 23 video tapes of cameras while claiming that all 26 surveillance cameras passed by McVeigh’s truck just happened to coincidently be changing the tapes at the exact same second that McVeigh’s truck passed their camera.  This was done to hid the identities of the other bombers.  Even the surveillance tapes of the building were deleted from before the blast so that there was no evidence as to how many individuals exited the truck.  Documents obtained through lawsuits by Scott Trentadue’s brother, a 30-year attorney, show that the CIA was involved in the case, but refused to provide additional documents, claiming national security.  But, the CIA is not supposed to be operating domestically as it is a breach of federal law, but then again so is torture and murder and we can see how far the laws of this nation protects its citizens.  This is directly due to the judges, prosecutors and investigators being heinously corrupt.  Army investigators refused to name the murder a suicide. The tissue damage was so horrendous that the family was forced to have a closed casket funeral.
 
The funny part of this case is that the day of the OKC bombing there were no ATF agents in the building as evidence shows the ATF received warnings about the bombings, but the children in the daycare were left in place so as to serve as collateral damage and assist in allowing the government to get gruesome video of mangled children to justify the beginning of the American police state.
 
Here is the address for the video of Senator Orin Hatch detailing the elements of the coverup:
 
http://www.mormonvidz.com/video/1047/OCTOBER-10-1997-INTERVIEW-WITH-SENATOR-ORRIN-HATCH
 
Here are also Attorney Jesse Trentadue’s Youtube video detailing the coverup:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkvNKX5Jqik
 
Anyone that says the government is not a criminal enemy and oppressor of the people is a lying hypocrite.
 
While the U.S. government has fallen to new lows in morality and justice and new heights of depravity, it has risen to greater levels in oppression and tyranny.  It is ironic that while the U.S government foists an oligarchic kelptocracy intent on inflicting ever-increasing levels of misfeasance and malfeasance upon the citizenry, we see what U.S.-sponsored governance has wrought to the populations in its client states.  What makes Americans think that the elite ruling of this country care anymore about them than the Egyptian government cared about its people?  For that matter, what makes Americans think the elite in the U.S. government care anymore about them than they care about a poor Egyptian?  If justice is a concern of government, it becomes a concern in all its dealing.  When justice is not a concern, we see government that becomes increasingly corrupt by expanding tyrannies for the purpose of seeking to maintain greater advantage.
 
In Britain and the U.S the law becomes a weapon as opposed to being a system designed to provide justice.  In the case of Assange, British prosecutors initially denied bail to him even though he had turned himself in to the London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) who arrested him on sex crime allegations in a warrant issued by the Swedish government.  Assange then allowed himself to be repeatedly interrogated.  He then remained in contact for five weeks and making himself available to investigators at their convenience.  The WikiLeaks founder and head has not spent any time denying charges, as it should be noted that he has not yet been charged with anything while being held without bail in what was essentially solitary confinement.  Assange does claim the allegations are politically and sexually motivated, and the result of pressure by the United States and deals that were cut between politicians.
 
Government often seeks controversy so that it may institute legal proceedings whereby it obtains the opportunity to decide in its favor and expand its power so as to institutionalize its injustices under a thin veneer of legitimacy created by criminals in robes who arrogantly pander to state interests at the expense of liberty and freedom.  People who wind up in controversy involving the abuse of state power expect the judicial branch to protect their rights, but the court’s interest is first, foremost and always to protect the state.  Once in a while promoting justice coincides with the ends of the state, but this is not the case when the state is one of the parties involved in a dispute with someone asserting his rights.  A right is a claim on government to use force against someone who violates property.  If someone violates you, they violate property because you own property in yourself and can make a legal claim on government for defensive force the government has promised to provide as part of the social compact.  This social compact is in the government’s practical interest if the government seeks to hold its monopoly on the use of violence in a geographic area.  So, what is property?  The answer to this question is:  Property is one or more legal rights.  We do not enforce our rights, the government does because it is the final arbiter, and again has a monopoly on the use of violence.  People commonly understand the definition of property to mean ownership of something such as land and therefore think land is property.  This is not true.  Land is not the property, land is what you hold property in, with the term property again meaning one or more legal rights being provided in the framework of what is government.  This is why the government can take your land when it fits its interest.  Then, you have no right to call on the government to supply protective force to exclude others from the land because government has decided you no longer hold property in the land once it decides to refuse your claim upon it for the use of force.   
 
Since we make a claim on government to protect our person or property, with property meaning one or more legal rights, we need to have a better understanding of the true nature of entity called government to whom we make claims for the use of defensive force to protect our labor and property.  Hans Hermann Hoppe came up with the definition of the state that is held to be accurate by libertarians.  He says:
 
“Let me begin with the definition of government: A government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service. (1) Except for some so-called public choice economists such as James Buchanan, it is obvious that such an extraordinary institution cannot arise “naturally”, as the outcome of voluntary contractual agreements among individual property owners. (2) For no one would agree to a deal that entitled someone else, once and for all, to determine whether or not one was truly the owner of one’s own property, and no one would agree to a deal that entitled this monopoly judge with the power to impose taxes on oneself. Rather, an institution such as government would normally, and from the outset, be regarded as an illegitimate and indeed criminal protection racket. And as a protection racket, this institution would tend to be brought down quickly. It is only possible for such an institution to survive for any length of time if and insofar as it succeeds in instilling in the “protected” public a myth, i.e., a false yet generally held, and hence effective, belief. In order to make the public accept, i.e., not to resist, the protection racket, it must be persuaded that without a monopoly of jurisdiction and taxation (that is, in what has been called a “state of nature”) constant warfare among individual property owners would exist. I have called this belief the Hobbesian myth and identified it as the most powerful and widespread myth of the modern world.”
 
While the government may be eager to engage in the use of violence to enforce its own decrees against an interloper, it is rare to find situations where the government enthusiastically or even reasonably limits it actions when in conflict with its own laws that tend to, or are intentionally written and specifically worded for the purpose of binding its power.  In fact, government is often the party whom seeks conflict for the purpose of arbitrating in its favor so as to expand its power.  So, when someone petitions the government to retain their freedom of action or to enforce exclusion against the government, even when it holds no property in a particular act or thing, it is very difficult to get the government to enforce his rights except for in instances where people may begin to challenge government. 
 
The state regularly seeks additional powers promising legislators that the power it is seeking will only be used in very specific cases involving very narrow guidelines.  Immediately after being granted that power it is then used abusively and broadly in cases that involve allegations of crimes that have nothing to do with the reasons and cases for which prosecutors had originally sought additional power.  Such power routinely becomes another instrument of tyranny and injustice in the government’s toolbox.  Government often seeks to make people break laws through ignorance or by creating legal dilemmas that it then gets to arbitrate on a case-by-case basis so as to come up with whatever decision it wants when it wants.   Often times government is able to obtain power through peoples’ ignorance of some arcane illegality seeking to make people unsuspecting victims suddenly subject to state power in ruinous legal proceedings.  People representing themselves in court are deluded into thinking they will be granted justice due to their complete innocence or the legality of their action.  They often find unethical police and prosecutors colluding systemically to deny justice and manufacture some crime completely absent of any criminal intent.  With regard to matters of fact, perjury by police is so rampant that it has been given the name testilying by law enforcement.  Prosecutors and police operating the interests of the state as opposed to justice will abuse their authority and engage in tyranny thereby creating a system where justice is only obtainable if you have the time and money necessary to fight the unlimited resources of government.  In other words, justice becomes a hypothetical possibility as opposed to the eventuality the state claims the system provides.  Then, what passes as law the elite claim as justice because they control all the levers of power and decide the outcome in their favor.
 
With regard to providing justice under law, something a judge should be bound to, it is easy to see his first and primary interest is in siding with the state and assuaging his ego.  The criminals in robes are so tyrannical that they will deny justice if their egos are bruised by a party to an action who demands their decisions be bound by law.  And, just as surely as governments engage in tyranny, so to do corporations.  Noam Chomsky states that corporations are private tyrannies.  These concentrations of private power and their agents can be just as spiteful, abusive and parochial as government.  The Swiss bank, PostFinance, has frozen Assange’s legal defense account and he is prevented from meeting with his lawyer except immediately prior to his court appearances. 
 
With calls of American politicians seeking Assange’s torture and execution, it matters not one iota to our political rulers that Assange is not subject to American laws.  But with England playing the poodle to American interests, I am sure we will be deluged with absurdities that are needed to rationalize the empire’s atrocities. 
 
As justice is always in the peoples’ interest and government regularly engages in tyranny as the result of not being able to get its way under law, the government has in interest in limiting one’s ability to get justice when justice brings the individual into conflict with tyrannical government.  This is a major reason why so much of law is done outside what a jury can observe.  If citizens had an actual understanding of the tyranny and abuse that occurs outside their eyes, and must forever remain hidden for the courts to maintain a perception of legitimacy to disinterested third parties adjudicating in the interest of justice, courts would be rightly seen as organized rackets that in many instances sells justice to the highest bidder and issues out dispensation according to how handsomely one is able to provide remuneration to the legal profession. 
 
If people knew the truth concerning how the judicial branch of government conspires with the executive branch and its law enforcement and regulatory agencies against Americans, they would work to weaken the state’s power by leveling the playing field through holding government’s agents to much higher standard of proof, nullifying laws where the punishment does not fit the crime and relying on their sense of justice as opposed to what courts procedurally or substantively dictate. 
 
As of this writing Julian Assange has not been charged with anything after many months.  Apologists for state power have already begun opposing those that point out the many government tyrannies perpetrated by government, claiming prosecutors overlooked various sex crimes of which they have mistakenly believe he had committed but not been charged.  The fact of the matter is he currently only stands accused of certain acts the Swedish government has not even formally defined or interpreted as being any violation of law and so has not been formally charged with anything.   Assange’s captivity is being perpetrated under confusing EU jurisdictional arrangements and treaties even though what is defined as a criminal act in one country may not be a crime at all in the country for which a suspect is being held.  This allows instances of political persecution, and in the case of Assange allows him to be held incommunicado while England, Sweden and the U.S. conspire through novel legal interpretations to create some contrived jurisdictional authority for the U.S. to seek extradition.  The U.S. government has essentially tortured Bradley Manning, the individual accused of leaking classified information to Assange, and dangled deals in order to get him to implicate Assange in some contrived criminal conspiracy.  The conditions in which Manning was held violate military procedure according to the Army’s own Inspector General.
 
One journalist mocked Interpol by thanking it for enforcing sensitivity and punishing narcissism.  She then went on to list a host of other former acquaintances she sought international arrest warrants for due to their being less than gentlemanly.  It is such a travesty that Assange is still being held while the “victim” refuses to cooperate with police.  Since issuing the complaint one girl had wound up missing for an extended period of time and was not cooperating with prosecutors, but the case marches on even without formal charges.
 
Currently, the U.S. cannot charge Assange with treason as he is not a citizen of the U.S.  So, they are eyeing charges of “Conspiracy”, the exact charge for which government actors have engaged to such an extent that tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost through a global conspiracy that was consummated with an illegal invasion.  The U.S believes that if Assange has communicated with and encouraged PFC Bradley Manning to steal documents, Assange could and would then be promoted to a criminal partner in a conspiracy.  At present the U.S. is reviewing email and chat room manuscripts to see if anything can be twisted into fixing the fact around the policy. not unlike that which the U.S. did after deciding a year prior to 9/11 to manufacture a justification to invade Iraq going as far as illegal and unauthorized bombing campaigns and eventually the used the 9/11 incident to invade Iraq even though U.S. intelligence had proven no connection between Saddam and bin Laden, 9/11 or al Qaeda.
 
The politicians’ calls to assassinate Assange are legally an incitement to commit murder.  Since Assange has committed no crimes, if he is murdered, all people who participated in his killing in any way would also be conspirators in a murder.  But, the problem with the American system of justice is that the prosecutor’s are tied in with politicians and judges and regularly refuse to enforce laws due to political power.  This is why politicians can incite murder, police can commit perjury, beat, torture and violate the U.S. Constitution, and all the minions of government can engage in conspiracies without fear of the penalties provided by law.
 
When one participates in society, that person often operates under a personal code that serves to provide an ethical framework that guides his or her actions.  It is inconceivable that Assange would be a rapist.  He voluntarily surrendered to authorities, but a judge who is nothing more than a gatekeeper for state power, has denied bail.  It makes a mockery of the justice system that someone could be kept in confinement and isolated on such spurious charges.  How many days did Al Gore spend in jail when his masseuse claimed an sexual attack?  How many days did Bill Clinton spend in jail when he was accused of attacking Paula Jones?  Yet, a crusader for justice who voluntarily surrendered is now being treated as a mass murderer and described as a terrorist by America’s political class, a description that more aptly describes our ruling class.
 
If one accepts the description of Assange as a terrorist, then let’s examine the U.S. government’s Department of Defense definition of terrorism and apply it using highly accurate definitions giving extreme deference to the U.S. government’s definition so as to grant as much leeway as possible to the government to prevent any quibbling by those who are apologists for the state.  I use the government’s definition of terrorism to demonstrate that the U.S. is no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of powerful men whose laws are whatever they say they are and the application of those laws apply only to the people the powerful seek to control as they exempt themselves from the rule of law.  The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:  “The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear to intimidate governments of societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political or ideological.” The FBI defines terrorism as:  “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.”
 
If one person can provide me with a single shred of evidence of there having been any threatened violence by Assange, a much lower standard than an instance of actual threatened violence, then I will grant Mike Huckabee’s description of Assange as a terrorist the legitimacy he seeks for the purpose of establishing his ridiculous accusations and charges.  As I would agree that even the threat of violence is a type of force, terrorism does not actually have to mean that physical violence occurred as a threat is a type of psychological violence. 
 
As it is easy to see, no one from Wikileaks ever mentioned using violence against anyone.  But, now let’s examine Huckabee, Palin and Fox News pronouncements, as words become deeds for those who have no limiting force exerted on their behavior, which demonstrates why Huckabee and Palin are much too dangerous people to be considered for the position of supreme executive of a nation as powerful as the U.S.  All three of these entities have said Assange should be murdered for his postings of documents for which the U.S. has made no case of there being any illegality on the part of Assange and for which U.S. precedent has established via the Pantagon Papers that no crime was committed on the part of Wikileaks or Assange.  Can one think of a more exact definition of someone engaging in the fear in the pursuit of the political objective of shutting down Assange and Wikileaks?  
 
Those in our government whom seek to be judge, jury and executioner ought to be impeached and indicted for treason against the constitution.  Barak Obama is just one of a long line of U.S. politicians whose crimes deserve such a fate.  It is people such as Obama that approve of assassination, as they seek no limit on the application of their power, that ought to face charges brought by the people.  Assange is accused of being a nihilist, anarchist, or a relativist, but he is the one who is relying on the rule of law while it is the power elite who want the law to be whatever they say it is as it fits their purposes.   So, who is the party that is a relativist and nihilist seeking to operate outside of the moral and legal restraints provided by the rule of law?  It surely is not Assange.
 
Another major fact that the mainstream media and government has successfully kept from the attention of the American public is that fact that Assange had offered the American government the opportunity to vet tens of thousands of documents to prevent the release of whatever data the U.S. government believed might have jeopardized U.S. or Afghan lives.  The U.S. refused this opportunity obviously because they would have wanted to classify everything, but the final say would have belonged to Assange.  The American government refuses to acknowledge any rule of law that does not provide it complete, arbitrary and final say.
 
This desire by politicians to always have the final say manifests itself in the courts where judges, who are nothing more than politicians in robes and whose primary goal is to serve the state as opposed to justice, despise any attempt by the populous to judge issues of law and justice.  There are only two of three states whose constitution allows the jury to judge the law as well as the facts.  In the states that have constitutions that allow juries to judge the law as well as the facts, judges issue jury instructions telling the jury they should rely on the judge to decide any issues of law.  However, neither the defendant nor his counsel is ever allowed to the opportunity to explain to the jury what the jury’s rights are and what authority they have according to their constitution as the trier of law as well as fact. 
 
Lysander Spooner wrote a brilliant thesis in which the compete work is available on the internet at dozens of sites.  The work is called “Trial by Jury” and it should be the duty of every American who may ever serve on a jury to become familiar with this document.  I have read it at least a dozen times and every single time I read it it keeps getting more relevant.  Its relevancy is exactly proportional to the abuses by our government and its attempt to use the law as a weapon of domination as opposed to the law being a servant of the people for the purpose of justice.
 
Spooner, an American, individualist, anarchist, libertarian, political philosopher, Deist, and abolitionist,  knew the government to be an oppressive and illegitimate entity that relies on lies and violence as its operating prinicples.  His analysis of the government stands on sound logical and philsophical reasoning.  I believe the power of Spooner’s argument for the jury can most expeditiously and effectively be summed up in the very first chapter of his thesis which is an integral part of this essay.  I have included this chapter in the hope that Americans will further investigate Lysander Spooner’s brilliance and deep understanding concerning the nature of government and liberty.  Once having read his work, I believe people will be changed and freed of the tyranny into which they find themselves indoctrinated.  Equally as brilliant and also available for free to the public on the internet is his two other works called “Vice is No Crime” and “The Constitution of No Authority”.
 
 
TRIAL BY JURY
CHAPTER I
THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE OF THE JUSTICE OF LAWS
 
SECTION I.
 
FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
 
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
 
But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
 
That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.
 
It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
 
Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.
 
To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.
 
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
 
It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.
 
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction; it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
 
But all this "trial by the country" would be no trial at all "by the country," but only a trial by the government, if the government 'could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.
 
If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law.
 
So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a " trial by the country," but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own - not by their own judgments of their rightful liberties - but by a standard. dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people's liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people's determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.
 
The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are capable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded.
 
The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.
 
The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.
 
It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered; otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government: and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a "trial by the country." By such trials the government will determine its own powers over the people, instead of the people's determining their own liberties against the government; and it will be an entire delusion to talk, as for centuries we have done, of the trial by jury, as a "palladium of liberty," or as any protection to the people against the oppression and tyranny of the government.
 
The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise.
 
The force and. justice of the preceding argument cannot be evaded by saying that the government is chosen by the people; that, in theory, it represents the people; that it is designed to do the will of the people; that its members are all sworn to observe the fundamental or constitutional law instituted by the people; that its acts are therefore entitled to be considered the acts of the people; and that to allow a jury, representing the people, to invalidate the acts of the government, would therefore be arraying the people against themselves.
 
There are two answers to such an argument.
 
One answer is, that, in a representative government, there is no absurdity or contradiction, nor any arraying of the people against themselves, in requiring that the statutes or enactments of the government shall pass the ordeal of any number of separate tribunals, before it shall be determined that they are to have the force of laws. Our American constitutions have provided five of these separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate, executive, jury, and judges; and have made it necessary that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all these separate tribunals, before its authority can be established by the punishment of those who choose to transgress it. And there is no more absurdity or inconsistency in making a jury one of these several tribunals, than there is in making the representatives, or the senate, or the executive, or the judges, one of them. There is no more absurdity in giving a jury a veto upon the laws, than there is in giving a veto to each of these other tribunals. The people are no more arrayed against themselves, when a jury puts its veto upon a statute, which the other tribunals have sanctioned, than they are when the same veto is exercised by the representatives, the senate, the executive, or the judges.
 
But another answer to the argument that the people are arrayed against themselves, when a jury hold an enactment of the government invalid, is, that the government, and all the departments of the government, are merely the servants and agents of the people; not invested with arbitrary or absolute authority to bind the people, but required to submit all their enactments to the judgment of a tribunal more fairly representing the whole people, before they carry them into execution, by punishing any individual for transgressing them. If the government were not thus required to submit their enactments to the judgment of "the country," before executing them upon individuals - if, in other words, the people had reserved to themselves no veto upon the acts of the government, the government, instead of being a mere servant and agent of the people, would be an absolute despot over the people. It would have all power in its own hands; because the power to punish carries all other powers with it. A power that can, of itself, and by its own authority, punish disobedience, can compel obedience and submission, and is above all responsibility for the character of its laws. In short, it is a despotism.
 
And it is of no consequence to inquire how a government came by this power to punish, whether by prescription, by inheritance, by usurpation. or by delegation from the people's If it have now but got it, the government is absolute.
 
It is plain, therefore, that if the people have invested the government with power to make laws that absolutely bind the people, and to punish the people for transgressing those laws, the people have surrendered their liberties unreservedly into the hands of the government.
 
It is of no avail to say, in answer to this view of the ease, that in surrendering their liberties into the hands of the government, the people took an oath from the government, that it would exercise its power within certain constitutional limits; for when did oaths ever restrain a government that was otherwise unrestrained? Or when did a government fail to determine that all its acts were within the constitutional and authorized limits of its power, if it were permitted to determine that question for itself?
 
Neither is it of any avail to say, that, if the government abuse its power, and enact unjust and oppressive laws, the government may be changed by the influence of discussion, and the exercise of the right of suffrage. Discussion can do nothing to prevent the enactment, or procure the repeal, of unjust laws, unless it be understood that, the discussion is to be followed by resistance. Tyrants care nothing for discussions that are to end only in discussion. Discussions, which do not interfere with the enforcement of their laws, are but idle wind to them. Suffrage is equally powerless and unreliable. It can be exercised only periodically; and the tyranny must at least be borne until the time for suffrage comes. Be sides, when the suffrage is exercised, it gives no guaranty for the repeal of existing laws that are oppressive, and no security against the enactment of new ones that are equally so. The second body of legislators are liable and likely to be just as tyrannical as the first. If it be said that the second body may be chosen for their integrity, the answer is, that the first were chosen for that very reason, and yet proved tyrants. The second will be exposed to the same temptations as the first, and will be just as likely to prove tyrannical. Who ever heard that succeeding legislatures were, on the whole, more honest than those that preceded them? What is there in the nature of men or things to make them so? If it be said that the first body were chosen from motives of injustice, that fact proves that there is a portion of society who desire to establish injustice; and if they were powerful or artful enough to procure the election of their instruments to compose the first legislature, they will be likely to be powerful or artful enough to procure the election of the same or similar instruments to compose the second. The right of suffrage, therefore, and even a change of legislators, guarantees no change of legislation - certainly no change for the better. Even if a change for the better actually comes, it comes too late, because it comes only after more or less injustice has been irreparably done.
 
But, at best, the right of suffrage can be exercised only periodically; and between the periods the legislators are wholly irresponsible. No despot was ever more entirely irresponsible than are republican legislators during the period for which they are chosen. They can neither, be removed from their office, nor called to account while in their office, nor punished after they leave their office, be their tyranny what it may. Moreover, the judicial and executive departments of the government are equally irresponsible to the people, and are only responsible, (by impeachment, and dependence for their salaries), to these irresponsible legislators. This dependence of the judiciary and executive upon the legislature is a guaranty that they will always sanction and execute its laws, whether just or unjust. Thus the legislators hold the whole power of the government in their hands, and are at the same time utterly irresponsible for the manner in which they use it.
 
If, now, this government, (the three branches thus really united in one), can determine the validity of, and enforce, its own laws, it is, for the time being, entirely absolute, and wholly irresponsible to the people.
 
But this is not all. These legislators, and this government, so irresponsible while in power, can perpetuate their power at pleasure, if they can determine what legislation is authoritative upon the people, and can enforce obedience to it, for they can not only declare their power perpetual, but they can enforce submission to all legislation that is necessary to secure its perpetuity. They can, for example, prohibit all discussion of the rightfulness of their authority; forbid the use of the suffrage; prevent the election of any successors; disarm, plunder, imprison, and even kill all who refuse submission. If, therefore, the government (all departments united) be absolute for a day - that is, if it can, for a day, enforce obedience to its own laws - it can, in that day, secure its power for all time - like the queen, who wished to reign but for a day, but in that day caused the king, her husband, to be slain, and usurped his throne.
 
Nor will it avail to say that such acts would be unconstitutional, and that unconstitutional acts may be lawfully resisted; for everything a government pleases to do will, of course, be determined to be constitutional, if the government itself be permitted to determine the question of the constitutionality of its own acts. Those who are capable of tyranny, are capable of perjury to sustain it.
 
The conclusion, therefore, is, that any government, that can, for a day, enforce its own laws, without appealing to the people, (or to a tribunal fairly representing the people,) for their consent, is, in theory, an absolute government, irresponsible to the people, and can perpetuate its power at pleasure.
 
The trial by jury is based upon a recognition of this principle, and therefore forbids the government to execute any of its laws, by punishing violators, in any case whatever, without first getting the consent of "the country," or the people, through a jury. In this way, the people, at all times, hold their liberties in their own hands, and never surrender them, even for a moment, into the hands of the government.
 
The trial by jury, then, gives to any and every individual the liberty, at any time, to disregard or resist any law whatever of the government, if he be willing to submit to the decision of a jury, the questions, whether the law be intrinsically just and obligatory? and whether his conduct, in disregarding or resisting it, were right in itself? And any law, which does not, in such trial, obtain the unanimous sanction of twelve men, taken at random from the people, and judging according to the standard of justice in their own minds, free from all dictation and authority of the government, may be transgressed and resisted with impunity, by whomsoever pleases to transgress or resist it.
 
The trial by jury authorizes all this, or it is a sham and a hoax, utterly worthless for protecting the people against oppression. If it do not authorize an individual to resist the first and least act of injustice or tyranny, on the part of the government, it does not authorize him to resist the last and the greatest. If it do not authorize individuals to nip tyranny in the bud, it does not authorize them to cut it down when its branches are filled with the ripe fruits of plunder and oppression.
 
Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all defence whatsoever against oppression. The right of revolution, which tyrants, in mockery, accord to mankind, is no legal right under a government; it is only a natural right to overturn a government. The government itself never acknowledges this right. And the right is practically established only when and because the government, no longer exists to call it in question. The right, therefore, can be exercised with impunity, only when it is exercised victoriously. All unsuccessful attempts at revolution, however justifiable in themselves, are punished as treason, if the government be permitted to judge of the treason. The government itself never admits the injustice of its laws, as a legal defence for those who have attempted a revolution, and failed. The right of revolution, therefore, is right of no practical value, except for those who are stronger than the government. So long, therefore, as the oppressions of a government are kept within such limits as simply not to exasperate against it a power greater than its own, the right of revolution cannot be appealed to, and is therefore inapplicable to the case. This affords a wide field for tyranny; and, if a jury cannot here intervene, the oppressed are utterly defenseless.
 
It is manifest that the only security against the tyranny of the government lies in forcible resistance to the execution of the injustice; because the injustice will certainly be executed, unless it be forcibly resisted. And if it be but suffered to be executed, it must then be borne; for the government never makes compensation for its own wrongs.
 
Since, then, this forcible resistance to the injustice of the government is the only possible means of preserving liberty, it is indispensable to all legal liberty that this resistance should be legalized. It is perfectly self-evident that where there is no legal right to resist the oppression of the government, there can be no legal liberty. And here it is all-important to notice, that, practically speaking, there can be no legal right to resist the oppressions of the government, unless there be some legal tribunal, other than the government, and wholly independent of, and above, the government, to judge between the government and those who resist its oppressions; in other words, to judge what laws of the government are to be obeyed, and what may be resisted and held for nought. The only tribunal known to our laws, for this purpose, is a jury. If a jury have not the right to judge between the government and those who disobey its laws, and resist its oppressions, the government is absolute, and the people, legally speaking are slaves. Like many other slaves they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are nevertheless known to the law only as slaves.
 
That this right of resistance was recognized as a common law right, when the ancient and genuine trial by jury was in force, is not only proved by the nature of the trial itself, but is acknowledged by history.
 
This right of resistance is recognized by the constitution of the United States, as a strictly legal and constitutional right. It is so recognized, first by the provision that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury" - that is, by the country - and not by the government; secondly, by the provision that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional security for "the right to keep and bear arms," implies the right to use them - as much as a constitutional security for the right to buy and keep food would have implied the right to eat it. The constitution, therefore, takes it for granted that the people will judge of the conduct of the government, and that, as they have the right, they will also have the sense, to use arms, whenever the necessity of the case justifies it. And it is a sufficient and legal defence for a person accused of using arms against the government, if he can show, to the satisfaction of a jury, or even any one of a jury, that the law he resisted was an unjust one.
 
In the American State constitutions also, this right of resistance to the oppressions of the government is recognized, in various ways, as a natural, legal, and constitutional right. In the first place, it is so recognized by provisions establishing the trial by jury; thus requiring that accused persons shall be tried by "the country," instead of the government. In the second place, it is recognized by many of them, as, for example, those of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, by provisions expressly declaring that the people shall have the right to bear arms. In many of them also, as, for example, those of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Iowa, and Arkansas, by provisions, in their bills of rights, declaring that men have a natural, inherent, and inalienable right of "defending their lives and liberties." This, of course, means that they have a right to defend them against any injustice on the part of the government, and not merely on the part of private individuals; because the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals and the people, as against the government, and not as against private persons. It would be a matter of ridiculous supererogation to assert, in a constitution of government, the natural right of men to defend their lives and liberties against private trespassers.
 
Many of these bills of rights also assert the natural right of all men to protect their property - that is, to protect it against the government. It would be unnecessary and silly indeed to assert, in a constitution of government, the natural right of individuals to protect their property against thieves and robbers.
 
The constitutions of New Hampshire and Tennessee also declare that "The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
 
The legal effect of these constitutional recognitions of the right of individuals to defend their property, liberties, and lives, ' against the government, is to legalize resistance to all injustice and oppression, of every name and nature whatsoever, on the part of the government.
 
But for this right of resistance, on the part of the people, all governments would become tyrannical to a degree of which few people are aware. Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of governments, unless it be understood that the people will, by force, compel the government to keep within the constitutional limits. Practically speaking, no government knows any limits to its power, except the endurance of the people. But that the people are stronger than the government, and will resist in extreme cases, our governments would be little or nothing else than organized systems of plunder and oppression. All, or nearly all, the advantage there is in fixing any constitutional limits to the power of a government, is simply to give notice to the government of the point at which it will meet with resistance. If the people are then as good as their word, they may keep the government within the bounds they have set for it; otherwise it will disregard them - as is proved by the example of all our American governments, in which the constitutions have all become obsolete, at the moment of their adoption, for nearly or quite all purposes except the appointment of officers, who at once become practically absolute, except so far as they are restrained by the fear of popular resistance.
 
The bounds set to the power of the government, by the trial by jury, as will hereafter be shown, are these - that the government shall never touch the property, person, or natural or civil rights of an individual, against his consent, {except for the purpose of bringing them before a jury for trial,) unless in pursuance and execution of a judgment, or decree, rendered by a jury in each individual case, upon such evidence, and such law, as are satisfactory to their own understandings and consciences, irrespective of all legislation of the government.
 
This chapter speaks volumes about the type of government our nation has allowed its ruling elite to inflict on Americans.  When one considers people like Huckabee and Palin, whom believe their presidential aspirations are being furthered by the expression of their desire to even do away with the niceties and pretenses of a kangaroo court, which best describes what our federal court system has become, so as to proceed directly to execution, Americans should realize that the fears Spooner mentioned are not only a realistic possibility but have become the actual culminating conclusion and eventuality for what has become the reality of absolute and tyrannical rule by government. 
 
Eric Holder, who never found a crime committed on behalf of the state that he could not overlook, is in dry spin over Wikileaks.  He has held press conferences announcing the “tools” and strategies for prosecuting Assange going as far as mouthing announcements even his governmental checkbook cannot back up.  My question is:  Does the Geneva Convention or U.S. law say torture is allowed if it is committed against Muslims?  Torture is never used by government to get at the truth of a matter, it is used as a method of forcing people to say whatever the government wants to hear.  As far as I am concerned, any individual who authorized or participated in torture should be prosecuted and issued the exact same punishment that has been meted out by the United States, as a high contracting party to the Geneva Convention.  Failure to take action is an issue of conspiracy and criminal dereliction.
 
Assange has made it plain to understand that his issue with all government stems from its illegitimacy, conspiratorial nature, criminal actions and blatant hypocrisy.  Like many people, Assange is not anti=government, but anti-bad-government.  Those in power refuse to acknowledge the difference mostly because the government they provide is mostly bad government.  As an institution, political power allows those whom control government to manipulate people, events and situations toward the advantage of the conspirator and his agents.  The term “conspiracy theorist” is often used in derision to denigrate those who seek to call attention to systemic injustice that is not only tolerated, but also encouraged by those seeking to maintain their advantage in power and wealth.  In the chapter named “Assange’s Mission and Agenda” I included his Wikileaks manifesto in which he explains authoritarian regimes and their conspiratorial nature.  This conspiracy, just like that of Mafioso corruption, is a cost on society.  It is an expense that is reckoned in wealth transferred, lives lost, bodies mangled and liberty confiscated. It is a cost that is bore by humanity at large and is continually perpetuated by those whom continue to benefit from an abusive system.  These conspiracies branch and sequence into a complex maze that continues to expand causing the fragmentation, erosion and destruction of every single virtue and institution needed to maintain civil society.  As this occurs, civil society’s desire for justice to form a sound foundation is replaced with a rapacious lust for power and wealth that is rewarded.  Soon we find we have a society with institutions and individuals that revel in such vices.  One need only look as far as the Clinton and Bush families to find the embodiment of the most vicious pursuit of power and the rewarding of such vice by seeking a market in service of power.  Even more disturbing is the failure of the intellectual class to become change agents as opposed to serving power by being apologists for every pathological manifestation caused by unchecked and unaccountable authority. 
 
Our exalted leaders send the masses off to slaughter for their material self-interest and they are inured into voluntary servitude.  Hitler once said, “What luck for rulers that men do not think.”  Americans denounce Assange without realizing he is offering them freedom and power that is provided by truth.  It is ignorance and lies that cause people to live in servitude.  Our government continually seeks to expand its power over us, but Americans have become so pathetic that they sit submissively aside with a willingness to surrender their freedom and power over government that our founding fathers bequeathed to them.  It was this comparative advantage in freedom and liberty that made America+ great, not the government engaging in conquest.  While imperial gains lead to quick riches, the benefits conquest provides does not last.  What is won by immoral violence must be maintained by immoral violence.  Within time that violence becomes part of a nation’s character.  Just as robbery and murder degrades individual character, so to does robbery and murder when carried out in the aggregate through military conquest and mass slaughter.  Soon we find there is no crime or atrocity we can not excuse, then justify and eventually promote.
 
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, is Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Founder and President of The Property and Freedom Society, and former Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies.  Professor Hoppe has come to the conclusion that with the government claiming a monopoly on force and in being the sole arbiter of what constitutes justice, as with any monopoly, the product, in this case government justice, becomes increasingly expensive but of shoddier and shoddier quality.  As Hoppe is from the Austrian school of economics, he views just about anything the government does as violent intervention into markets.  As all laws have the threat of death by government if resisted, his assessment is accurate and difficult to argue against.
 
Government would like people to believe that its judicial branch of government is a disinterested third party in legal disputes.  This is utter nonsense.  Not only are judges not disinterested third parties, but they have aligned themselves with the executive and legislative branch and in opposition to the American people and government’s contract with the people as defined by the U.S. Constitution. 
 
Lysander Spooner also wrote “No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, and in it he writes:
 
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.
 
Most Americans could stand the contradictions inherent in the U.S. Constitution if it would at least bind the government, or protect liberty, or at least be a rulebook for which Americans could use to defend themselves from a spiteful group of conspirators through its use as a guide to keep from running afoul of the power elite.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is nothing more than a tool of control in the hands of the powerful whose interpretations of it are grotesque miscarriages of justice.  Far from the U.S. Constitution being a divine document, it has proven to be a worthless document in that it either was worthless to stop encroachments by the government, or it allowed the government to do what it has done.  Either way, it has become nothing more to the elite than what George Bush termed it to be during his presidential rule –“just a goddamned piece of paper.”
 
Spooner then goes on to reason:
 
They ( the framers) had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
 
We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, AS AN AGREEMENT, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
 
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
 
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
 
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
 
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
 
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
 
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.
 
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.
 
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.
 
Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.
 
If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.
 
Spooner then goes on to deconstruct the state’s legitimacy by stressing its inherent contradictions thereby exposing its illegitimacy and basis in raw power and violence.  He examines the state’s taxing, making war, suffrage, conscription, currency manipulation through the Rothchilds, monopolistic exclusions and injustices, just to mention a few of the oppressions of government.  If Americans examined government by what it does as opposed to what it says, we would be a less gullible people.
 
So, if relying on Constitutional protections, what chance does Assange really have with regard to facing a state that Americans have allowed to become the Hobbsian leviathan? 
If the U.S. Government, as a legal fiction, wishes to claim that it suffered harm through its agents resulting from Assange’s disclosures, let its agents make the claim as to how they suffered harm.  Then let them stand to answer why they suffered harm.  What will be their claim?  If truth be the standard by which one has to stand, the state through its agents could only admit what is obvious.  It would have to be something along the lines of:
 
The government of the United States, through it agents, make claim against Mr. Julian Assange in that we have suffered an irreparable harm that now limits our ability to carry out arbitrary detentions, violations of human rights, renditions for torture by foreign government, torture committed by the U.S. government, murder and assassination.  We are also now hampered in our deception of the United Nations through the manufacture of false evidence and intelligence of being able to providing numerous and false casus belli, waging aggressive war for resources has been made exceedingly difficult and criminals in our government must now fear prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, overthrowing governments, providing material support to dictators involved in crimes against humanity and support for murder, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Due to Mr. Assange refusing to respect our unaccountable authority and arbitrary prerogative for agents of the U.S. government to maintain the ability to carry out our conspiracies, the power elite now controlling the U.S. government and its global corporate interests seek the Court to provide redress and all other relief just and proper in the premises.  The relief we seek is the torture and murder by capricious and arbitrary governmental decree without respect for due process, law or justice.  Furthermore, the U.S. government is now in a situation where our diplomats working under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be hampered in being able to steal credit card numbers, and gather DNA for the purpose of framing, exploiting and coercing the duly appointed representatives of foreign governments.    
 
Then, I propose Bush, Cheney, Obama, Clinton, Rumsfeld, and the cast of usual neocon suspects be held to answer counter-charges and the very same methods of justice they used on a 13 year-old boy be enacted against them for the purpose of discovery as they are the true terrorist threats to international law and this nation, as the actions of these individuals best fit the description of terrorism under U.S. law.  It is only through bribery, intimidation, blackmail and racketeering that these individuals have for so long evaded justice.  If the standard of proof for their crimes was held to be the exact same as the state maintains for an individual charged with crimes under the system of justice provided to citizens in the U.S., they all would hang for treason and crimes against humanity.  If a U.N. officer says the crimes are true, then they must be true.  Because, why would a law enforcement member of a supra-national organization say something was so if it was not so?
 
If justice were the standard that government had to suffer, there would be no war, nor tyrants using war to get what they could not obtain through any other resort.  Governments must understand they are subordinate to a social contract that has God as the ultimate arbiter.  This social contract is the basis for all human cooperation and superior to coercion by the state in every respect and manner.  Those who rely on position and power to pervert justice and truth should stand greater pains for having abused their office and the people.  They lie to themselves and then expect people to believe them for nothing more than the reason that they have come to believe their own lies.
 
As far as the rape charge against Assange, there are so many discrepancies, lies, embellishments, inconsistencies, omissions, obstructions, collusions, to include selective prosecution and conflicts of interest, in addition to all the issues raised concerning this prosecution being retaliation against a whistleblower whom is also the subject of malicious prosecution, a media smear campaign and the proposed target of assassination by government entities, one need not spend a great deal of time in deliberation to render judgment in favor of Assange.  While I know of no predisposition of criminality on the part of the defendant, I know of millions of injustices suffered at the hands of the state.  The really important issues that need to be examined with regard to Wikileaks are philosophical and metaphysical.  That being said, most people involved in politics, those that have had disputes with government, or those who are part of the political class or are its victims, all understand how sex is used in politics by the power elite.  It has become common knowledge that the powerful are willing allow the system to be manipulated by minions seeking to ingratiate themselves with the power elite.  This requires no conspiracy, only a willingness to be unethical and opportunistic.  Never need a word be spoken between gentlemen, as the actions to be undertaken by government minions seeking promotion and advancement are implicitly understood.  Usually, the ruling class demands that one “play ball” as prerequisite to moving up in the hierarchy with examples of loyalty to a corrupt system to be annotated on one’s resume.  As the education system imposes ignorance and obedience, so ones upward mobility is largely based on their obedience and servitude to power and a programmed ignorance of ethics accompanied by learned moral relativity with regard the actions of the power elite and their minions serving under the auspices of the state.
 
When looking at Assange from a dispassionate view, it would hardly seem likely that an individual willing to risk his life to expose corruption on a global scale would be a serial rapist and molester.  The charges reek of the stench of the type involved in the shenanigans of Hillary in which State Department personnel were assigned to steal credit card numbers, computer passwords and biometric data to blackmail and manipulate U.N. personnel and foreign diplomats.  Unless someone can think of some altruistic reason why diplomatic personnel are conducting covert activities to collecting pubic hairs, saliva samples and credit card numbers, this Assange rape case seems like a classic CIA/State Department smear campaign.  As Assange’s attorney has stated, “The honey trap has been sprung.”
 
In Assanges’ situation, you have two female hangers-on with some social activism interests who suddenly run across each other and compare notes on Assange and then surprisingly discover he used them both of them to engage in sexual activity that was consensual but rough, casual but erotic, selfish and risky in nature.  Suddenly, these two individuals discover they can get fame, fortune and ill-gotten gain by claiming Assange violated them by having a condom allegedly and disputably break in one case, and by having engaged in repeated sex acts during which at some time a condom was allegedly not used by Assange.  A female that admittedly was drinking heavily while engaging in multiple sex acts has made this allegation.  Both females maintained contact and a relationship with Assange after their encounters with one female bragging about her sexual conquest of such a high-profile celebrity.  Between the both of them they drove Assange, fed him, and allowed him to gain lodging through the use each of their homes and shared beds.  A house was not the only thing that ended up being used by Assange, but such chauvinistic tendencies are hardly a crime.  I will not argue that Assange has an ego, but, it takes someone with an ego, daring and intelligence to decide he wants to take on the world’s greatest and most criminal superpower.  Assange’s exploits have made him a cultural icon and nominee for a Nobel Peace Prize.  Assange understands his current importance and historic significance.  This makes Assange even more despised by those who spend their lives doing things exceptionally well that either need not be done at all, or is “work” that runs counter to the development of a progressive society.  This whole current situation with Assange’s two sex partners seems like it might be better handled by a brother or father of the girls with an adult discussion as opposed to a prosecutor having charges entered, dropped and then re-filed while seeking to have bail denied to a victim that was held in solitary confinement over such contrived charge.   Maybe the two girls also need to have their mother speak with them.
 
Since the exposure of the Wikileaks cables, the political class has been embarrassing itself further by following up incompetence and an undeserved sense of self-importance with bumbling and stupidity.   The ranting by politicians of getting Assange when after months had passed and after finally being forced to admit they have no case except for any false evidence they were able to torture out of SPC Bradley Manning.  The Pentagon Papers led to the break-in of Ellsberg’s physiatrist’s office, an act that led to Nixon’s resignation.  It is funny to see how far we have come as a nation to have such extreme violations of the constitution and incompetent overreaction now become standard procedure and be publicly and shamelessly announced by administration officials as if they were proclaiming it a virtue.
 
It is amazing to see how every administration thinks those who are a part of it are the world’s and history’s indispensable actors.  This theme has played itself out over and over again for every armed conflict in which the U.S. has ever been involved.  However, our political establishment could become immensely wiser by reading Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com and Mises.org with my hope being they will finally figure out how to quit repeating history.
 
Our foreign policy is schizophrenic as the diplomats know they are lying to themselves and then begin formulating foreign policy based on the lies and ideology they convinced themselves to believe.  Instead of waging war on an enemy, we wage war on a tactic, that tactic being terrorism.  How can we preempt the strategy of our enemy by declaring war on a tactic?  Then, we wage war on Saddam when 17 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and were Sunni al Qaeda, Saddam’s mortal enemy.  In fact, not one of the highjackers had any connection to Iraq except in wanting to see Saddam overthrown.  We gave our enemies exactly what they wanted.  So, we attack Saddam knowing he was not responsible while the Bush administration lied to the American people and then  to themselves to justify invading Iraq.  In Iraq, a nation that now with close ties to Iran, we find ourselves currently in the position of being friends with our enemy’s friends and being enemies with our friends friends.  Then we get attacked and blame it on our enemies when our supposed friends and allies are the ones actually committing the attacks.  It is exactly because Assange has exposed such nonsense in U.S. foreign policy that makes our extreme radical nationalist and interventionist government despise Assange and advocate the bombing of Wikileaks and the murder of Assange.  I can see our next election being a bunch of Republicans all on stage and all trying to outdo the other candidates by detailing how they would personally torture and kill Assange in increasingly explicit and gruesome detail as a way of garnering the support of their base.  At some point I think al Qaeda will leave us alone in the way a sane person does not become involved with a crazy guy dragging a dead dog by around by a leash while singing Christmas carols in July.
 
While Assange’s attorneys were negotiating his release on bail, he mentioned how he was told that if he argues against extradition by stating he would not get a fair trial in Sweden he would be denied bail and release from prison.  Assange was then kept in solitary confinement and had his bail hearing challenged all the way up to the high court.  While we see Assange being coerced into saying justice was available in Sweden, there were hundreds of intellectuals and professionals writing a letter to the court in Sweden outlining how important it is for Assange to get a fair trial.  Again, we see the coercive nature of the state rearing its ugly head.  Fredrik Reinfeldt’s government will be brought down if he decides to extradite, or maybe rendition is a better word, Assange to the U.S.  What makes one wonder is why the Swedish government granted a warrant, then refused to grant a warrant and then finally granted the warrant.  This is all being done amidst an absence of charges being filed and any release of evidence outside what the authorities have leaked to the media.  Government apologists have stated the police reports are significant in the case, but police reports are hearsay and only allow one side of the story.  While Assange has decried this leaking of documents, the smug media reporters who oppose Assange say he has no standing to complain, as he is the “King of Leaks.”  However, if one expects justice, then one expects the prosecution to behave ethically.  Assange’s issue with government is that it denies justice through secrecy.  But, Assange deserves secrecy because wielding power and determining issues of justice are not the purview of Wikileaks or Assange.  Assange wields no coercive power and is not free to plan assassinations and promote bombings as George Bush has done.  If he did, I would be the first one to support openness and accountability.  What people have to remember is that while Assange will very likely stand trial to answer for his charges, the politicians like Bush and Rove and journalists like Judith Miller who aided and abetted an aggressive war of choice will never see the inside of a courtroom nor be coerced or have others coerced to provide testimony against them. 
 
Assange exposed intelligence sharing arrangements in between Sweden and U.S. in which U.S. officials stated that Sweden is a de facto member of NATO against the will of the people from whom military alliances are being hidden.  Published Wikileaks documents exposed that this issue is even being hidden from the Swedish parliament because it may violate Sweden’s constitution.  The opposition leader made promises to the voters to withdraw Swedish troops from Afghanistan, but Wikileaks documents acknowledge that war opposition and the posturing concerning pulling troops out was done only for public consumption.  Wikileaks document prove the opposition party of the Social Democrats had no intention of pulling out any troops and had even entered in secret discussions with the U.S. to continue their involvement.  Assange then discovered that not only is the opposition leader secretly making deals with the U.S. and deceiving the Swedish people with regard to continued participation in the Afghan war, but the Social Democrats, oh by the way, also happen to be the same political party of the principal public advocate that is seeking the prosecution of Assange on behalf of the two ladies against whom Assange is accused of committing some crime of a sexual nature. 
 
Then, the reporter the political party selected to cover the leaked prosecution documents is one who is an outspoken critic of Assange who had such a grudge that he refused to cover the “Cablegate” stories released on Wikileaks. 
 
The people in the old Soviet Union used to say that the difference between American propaganda and Soviet propaganda is that the Soviets always knew their news was propaganda.  In America the insertion of corporate filters allows government to have a modicum of plausible deniability regarding the media being a propaganda arm of the government. 
 
In another example of hypocrisy, the U.S. fascist media’s justification for prosecuting Assange is that he is not a journalist because he maintains and threatens “the nuclear option” of outing all Arab politicians on the CIA payroll should the U.S. government have him extradited, imprisoned or murdered. This would definitely throw a wrench in the U.S.’s tried and true strategy of bribery to divide and conquer.  Here is another example of the government engaging in an act that if carried out by anyone else, it would be a crime.  The act I am speaking about is the bribing of public officials to sell out their nation and citizens.  This is how the elite work, and they would be the very same people selling out America if we were the country being bought off by a more powerful country.  While the elite expect others to fight and die for them, they would sell their people into slavery to the highest bidder.  In many instances they have already sold this nation into slavery.  They encourage others to kill or die fighting, but if faced with losing their wealth and privilege they would sooner have the land be conquered and its people reduced to slavery so long as they remain masters.  They would not sacrifice their wealth, but they expect citizens to be eager to sacrifice their very existence. 
The power elite in this country need to be stripped of wealth not by government fiat, but as a matter of law and restitution to their victims for having turned the law into a method of enforced social control.  There can be no argument that the rules they make and the legislation they pass into law are never meant to restrict any of their behavior, only those of the lesser casts.
 
The problem with Americans is that half of them are too stupid to resist their oppressors, and the other half reject violence even when it is justified and necessary.  In our nation we have seen torture go from being used secretly, to being publicly acknowledged, to being used as policy and promoted as a political issue.  We have seen Lyndee England go to jail for harassing Iraqi prisoners while General Stanley McCrystal was implementing an official policy of torture and murder.  But, because McCrystal’s orders came from on high, he was promoted while a girl with learning disabilities, who grew up in a trailer home, was given years in jail even though her harassment caused no death or even injuries.  The military desires to be considered as moral institution, but how can carrying out this type of injustice be considered moral, not to mention legitimate?
 
The Army made sure England was not able to call Pentagon or White House officials who not only condoned torture, but legalized it and then used it as foreign policy.  This type of hypocrisy should be examined by anyone who thinks making the military their career is an honorable endeavor.  In fact, citizens should boycott a volunteer military that fosters elitist lawlessness.  The military judges and lawyers themselves are cowards for not allowing a complete defense.  Don't soldiers realize they will be sold down the river for political purposes by those who claim to revere American fighting men and women?
 
When LTC Larry Franklin, a defense analyst at the Pentagon, engaged in spying for AIPAC, it demonstrated the extent to which espionage against America was being carried out for Israeli interests and how American policy was being influenced.  While the type of information being surrendered by Franklin made America vulnerable to being manipulated into war go from being a distinct possibility to an eventuality, he was given 10 months home confinement and community service, while Weissman and Rosen, two AIPAC agents also charged with spying, had all charges dismissed because their lawyers that threatened to do exactly what Lyndee England was denied, that being the calling of administration officials that would have exposed their criminality masquerading as foreign policy.
 
It mattered not that Israeli agents were later caught engaging in Obstruction of Justice and Bribery on FBI wiretaps of California Democratic Representative Jane Harmon’s phone line whereby offers of U.S. Zionist campaign support were made in exchange for her influence in getting the investigation and charges dismissed against AIPAC agents.
 
Every Supreme Court Justice, every member of the Senate, and almost every U.S. Representative needs to be impeached, stripped of wealth and power, and left to defend themselves with a first year public defender for war crimes, treason, economic crimes, conspiracy, and bribery.  These people worshiped and served power by sacrificing people’s lives at the altar of power.  People such as these have betrayed the nation and sold the American people into bondage.  The people’s wealth they have not squandered on a bloated military bureaucracy and associated defense industries, they then voted to give back to Wall Street bankers while the working class lost pensions, homes, IRAs, and stock nest eggs, all items needed by people in their old age that are necessary for their very survival.  Meanwhile, elderly Americans are placed in a situation of working until they die due to their wealth being, seized, squandered or passed out to banking interests.
 
Our Pentagon, State Department and White House have become infested with Jewish banking interests, neocons, Zionists and internationalists who seek to intervene in every economic, military, and social dispute on the planet.  The military/industrial complex has decided to drive us down a path of permanent war for permanent peace.
 
Americans are too apathetic  and lazy to engage in mass disruption of the economy to protest Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq.  Bush’s justifications for war changed weekly as he mocked American’s supreme sacrifice by using his shtick about looking for WMDs under tables at the White House press dinner.
 
The list of atrocities committed goes on as we are tyrannized by militarized police forces while our liberties are crushed under foot with Gestapo tactics.  Police have proven themselves to be tools of control and not defenders of the Constitution. There is no tyranny they will not support in exchange for their $50,000 a year job.  As we become sovietized, it seems law enforcement becomes the career of choice and a growth industry for those who are willing to trample the Constitution for a few bucks, and for those who serve in imperial wars for oil and dollar dominance.  Americans should consider that it is the 18-25 year-old imperial storm troopers currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that will end up being our next police force.
 
The U.S. government allowed Jewish bankers to print about $13 trillion.  That is enough money to give every single man, woman, and child in this country $43,000 dollars each.  Since the economic and power elites in this country decided to socialize banking losses and seize trillions of dollars for imperial wars and corporate gain, I ask the American people to demand that they be given their houses free and clear.  Just as Halliburton and Backwater were given billions of tax dollars, and trillions of dollars of Wall Street banking losses were foisted on the American people whose remaining savings have been stolen by the banking elites’ money printing presses or by Wall Street insider short selling, credit default swaps, and leveraging worthless paper as investment grade derivatives, Americans now have a right to their homes as government mismanagement, looting and tyranny has made itself an enemy of the whole American people and their prosperity.
 
The laws no longer apply to the elite, and they never really did.  Americans need a people’s army, people’s courts and police who abide by the Constitution, as opposed to law enforcement that exists only to protect and defend state tyranny.  The U.S. government has proven itself to be an enemy of the people by now deploying U.S. military forces on American soil to quell the uprising caused by their greed, theft and tyranny.
 
We need an armed 2 million man march on Washington D.C. performed while the U.S. Congress is in session.  We need these “legislators” to know that we Americans are at the end of our ropes.  We need to let them know that any attempt to disarm Americans will be met with all the force the people can muster.  The elite understand only one language, and that is the tongue they have been speaking to us in since the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve –the language of force.
 
The people who have destroyed this country, people like Obama, Clinton, Bush and Cheney, have not hijacked government, they are the government.  They are also bagmen working for elitist interests and they are extreme radicals.  The courts, having been packed with people like Alberto Gonzales no longer acknowledge any check on executive power.  All branches of government, instead of providing checks and balances against the other branches, has decided it pays better to join together and align against the American people.  As a people, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for electing these types of “leaders” to government office.  The rest of the world rightly laughs at Americans.  Now the middle-class will pay for the folly of the elite as we begin our precipitous decline with its associated miseries that can no longer be ignored.
 
Every time a party seeks control of some branch of government, usually the House, Senate, or Executive Office, the same promises of investigations and prosecutions are made, but as soon as the other party takes control all promises are broken and the abuses that were once acknowledged as outside the law suddenly become institutionalized.  RICO statutes are now used against kids with kool-aid stands while international criminals make billions.
 
Was there any abuse of power that was recognized as Illegal by the Nazi government of Germany?  Where were the police to protect people? Where were the jurists and jurors as government slaughtered innocents?  Where were the dismissals, acquittals or legal opinions in opposition to the government, as opposed to the death sentences that were being imposed by judges?  What laws or threats challenge governmental control of the U.S. and necessitate such tyranny?  It is only the power of truth and democracy.  The government has control of everything except men’s desire to be free and resist tyranny, but as the tyranny becomes greater, so will the desire to throw it off.
 
Five Justices appointed by Lincoln found that “Constitutional protections not only apply "equally in war and peace" but also – in a dramatic extension of this legal shield – to "all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." No emergency – not even open civil war – warrants their suspension. Even in wartime, the President's powers, though expanded, are still restrained: "he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws."  So where is the protection from illegal search and seizure?  Where is the protection from warrantless wiretaps, secret unlimited detention, torture and executive issued death warrants?
 
Little known to the people of this nation is the torture and murder of Kenneth Tentadue who the FBI had mistaken as the OKC bomber.  The cover-up went all the way to the very pinnacle of the White House and Justice Department who claimed a brutal torture and individual massacre was a suicide prior to completely sanitizing a murder scene while refusing to allow investigators access to the jail cell to this very day.  So do you still think America is under the rule of law?  The ATF incinerated dozens of women and children at Waco.  The ATF snipers slaughtered Randy Weaver’s 14 year-old son by shooting him in the back while running to his father after already blowing his arm off.  The same sniper then shot Mrs. Weaver in the face as she nursed her baby.  This is our government, and its partisans are sick and malicious.
 
The funny thing is that I am a nobody, but the things I say are true.  It is not me who scares the government, it is the truth.  I asked this question years ago, and I will ask it again.  Where is the line in the sand that Americans will not allow the government to cross without deciding to rebel openly and violently?  Is there no line left?  Do we have to wait for the country to collapse before revolt can begin?  Are we like the soviet farmers Stalin left to die by the tens of millions as he seized all food to use for his ambitions of power?  How is it one person was not able to kill him?  There is a reason why this question is never explored or that position advocated, it is because the elites consider their single life worth the lives of tens of millions of the masses.
 
Rulings by the Supreme Court acknowledged that there are times when the writ of habeas corpus may have to be suspended in an area where hostilities are directly taking place.  The Supreme Court  acknowledged this power  was highly circumscribed and specifically delegated to Congress, not the president. However, the current theory used as justification for tyranny, that of the unitary executive, exceeds the Constitution, is illegal, and has no basis in law.  Such doctrines are maintained only by force.  This authority, to summarily jail, torture and murder, has expanded and increased the scope of presidential powers to the point that the entire nation is essentially under dictatorship.  The government can arbitrarily deem anyone guilty by obtaining some secret evidence through torturing someone unto death.  That person can then be  arrested and  permanently silenced in any manner deemed necessary or expedient by Barak Obama.  Is there anyone who thinks a Supreme Court, the likes of Kagan, Breyer and Ginsberg, will defend American liberty?  Does anyone think lawyers the likes and caliber of Alberto Gonzales or Eric Holder will fight to limit tyranny?
 
Through control of the media the U.S. has crossed the Rubicon.  The elites now determine the limits of debate, manufacture consent, propagandize and conduct disinformation campaigns through control of corporate media.  Anyone who stands up to tyranny is deemed a nutcase, terrorist, or conspiracy theorist.  Their methods are so effective and complete that there is no discussion of police perjury, abuse, or even murder while such actions have literally destroyed the American justice system.  Lawlessness by elites is considered an unspeakable subject and left outside the parameters of public debate so as to not even be acknowledged.
 
With such dire threats to the nation as a few Hutaree fantasizing about shooting a cop as they drove past him on a highway, without ever having a gun on them or so much as hitting their brakes, these people suddenly became a seditious group of monumental importance, upon whose jailing the existence of our very nation hung in the balance.  The government actually had the gall to claim this group actually had the intentions to take over the U.S. based on thier “plan” that was a 30 second discussion that was soon interrupted by discussions of strippers.  This is the work product of 40 intelligence agencies with 850,000 people with Top Secret clearances who produce 50,000 pages of reports a year in conjunction with a bloated DHS bureaucracy and a multi-billion dollar budget.
 
However, the judges were inclined to give the widest possible berth to the war powers of the state.  After all, as one prominent judge, Janice Rogers Brown, in another case seeking the prosecution of a cook who served in the Northern Alliance, but whose unit never fought against the U.S., declared the war had pushed the nation “past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust."  Her decision gave the government sweeping new powers that allow the U.S. government to seize foreigners and hold them indefinitely without charges or legal appeal.  The case of Jose Padilla shows the government can hold and torture a U.S. citizen for years based on false charges obtained through the torture of foreigners, and then drop those very charges while providing a show trial based on other false evidence obtained through torture.  With these revelations it suddenly makes sense that all forms of resistance to government tyranny are now described as terrorism –by government.
 
When Americans understand that there are elite groups of people who share similar goals and ideologies whose political and economic interests are aligned with other elites, they will then understand how torture can me made legal, bankers can get trillions from taxpayers, and crimes against humanity and various war crimes can go unpunished while those with competing ideologies are deemed terrorists.
 
Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin extolled the virtues of soldiers who are now either professional warriors or mercenaries.  They claim our nation is in decline for not accepting the values of those who slaughter for elitist lies and propaganda without ever spending time to discern truth or determine the righteousness of the cause on behalf of which they kill. It is through intellectual dishonestly and the failure to discern absurdities that people believe they can kill for peace, submit to tyranny in the name of freedom, or believe government provides prosperity.
 
We have very little distance left to travel down our road to serfdom, but I would rather live in a log cabin or mud house than submit to the New World Order.  Americans have little wiggle room left before the anaconda grip of the state turns patriots into corpses.  There is a way to end this, and that is to put the government on notice that it is supposed to serve the people and try people for crimes regardless of their class or office.  We can end the tyranny by having a Veteran’s Day armed march on Washington to let the leaders remember whose interests they are supposed to serve.  Americans should remember that where the people fear the government there is tyranny, but where the government fears the people, there is liberty.  I would recommend all participants in such a protest bring their rifle and a mask.  I would bet the police would think twice before considering as a viable option the beating down these armed protesters.  I would bet the number of incidents of overly ambitious police beating citizens while they hold an assault rifle in their hands would be zero.  A proposed "Million Gun March" could be our last chance for Americans to win our country back peacefully.
 
As far as the establishment’s false claim that Assange is not a journalist because he threatened to reveal secrets to prevent his persecution as being their rationalization for justifying his prosecution, when one has to deal with a terrorist nation that seeks to murder you because you are a news reporter that is exposing crimes, in my opinion you need to maintain whatever leverage you can get.  Assange has threatened to expose the entire criminal racket, and this gives him power over government.  The government’s problem with this is that it wants everyone, to include all the leaders of all the nations of the world, to be helpless and forced to deal from a position of weakness.  In time after time the Native American believed that he could trust the U.S. government’s word, and time after time he ended up starving while burying his family in desert wasteland.  The government wants to make others deal from a position of weakness and then offers a horrible take-it-or-leave-it deal to its victims that is only one stanine above destitution and starvation.  In the end the victims usually discover the U.S. had no intention of even keeping that deal in the first place.
 
If you don’t believe me, ask any serious historian how, during Operation Desert Storm, Saddam’s entire army ended up on a single lane road in the desert heading back to Iraq when it soldiers were cut off and slaughtered by the tens of thousands on the “Highway of Death.”  Saddam made a deal that was brokered by the Russians and taken to the U.N. for approval by the U.S. government. Saddam promised to remove his army from Kuwait if the U.S. would not attack it.  Iraq would cease hostilities and in return Saddam could save his army.  The U.S. took the deal and then made it an impossibility by demanding that Iraq only get a few days to move an entire army.  The Iraqi commanders massed the army and then expropriated anything with four wheels that could carry soldiers.  The U.S. then waited until the army, massed in a giant convoy on a single road, traveled far enough out of Kuwait.  The U.S. then bombed the front vehicles to create a bottleneck on the single road.  It then spent the next two days slaughtering Iraqis.  As it is a serious breach of the Geneva Convention to attack an army leaving combat, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark drafted charges for war crimes against Bush.  The funny thing is that even 95 percent of the U.S. military does not know this is what occurred.  They think we outfought the Iraqi military in Kuwait and our brilliant strategy won the battle.  While less than five percent of Americans know this, you can bet that every single Sunni in Iraq does.  But, then the U.S. public always wonders why other leaders and countries just don’t take the U.S. government at its word and believe in its good intentions. 
 
With all the previous being said, I promised to detail the charges against Assange and so here is his side of the story that events support.  Mind you, Assange has not been charged, only accused.  One of the accusers, Anna Ardin, is a radical feminist who has made previous unsubstantiated claims that proved later to be false.  She also authored a piece called “The Seven Steps to Legal Revenge” in which she wrote:
 
7 Steps to Legal Revenge by Anna Ardin

Step 1
Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge.
It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge . . .

Step 2
Think about why you want revenge. You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.

Step 3
The principle of proportionality.
Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.
A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.

For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

Step 4
Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.

Use your imagination!

Step 5
Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.
Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion

Step 6
Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed.


The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.

Step 7
Get to work.
And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.
 
With this being Anna Ardin’s mindset and sexual manifesto let’s see how events unfolded after Assange had sex with another girl, one whom Anna immediately introduced him to after having she had intercourse with Assange.  But even to start here would be premature in fail in explaining the total weirdness of the charge without giving more background on Ardin.  The two Swedish women who have brought sex charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange boasted about their relationship with him days before going to police.

Based on information available on various websites quoting police and court files, and reports in the Swedish media, here's an account of what happened.

In August of 2010, Assange was invited to Stockholm to speak to a group of people after being invited by Sweden's Social Democratic Party.  The event organizer was in fact 31-year-old Anna Ardin who serves as the press secretary of the Brotherhood Movement. This group is an offshoot fragment of the Social Democratic Party. Ardin, a devoted feminist, leftist and animal rights activist, previously worked at the Uppsala University as the “Sexual Equality Officer” and dealt with feminist issues for the students' union. She is also deeply connected to U.S. funded anti-Castro groups and spent time in Cuba.  It is her ties with these groups and her work in the U.S. that is behind the internet being bombarded with speculations regarding her connections to the CIA.  But, we all know the CIA would never engage in trying to discredit its opponents by stealing credit cards, passwords to computers, or planting some pubic hair, nor would they ever keep contact with or try to influence through money, bribes, or coercion for having provided past information for bribes, any political insiders who would be a secretary for a nation’s political party structure they were seeking to ensure remained in Afghanistan.  The CIA just does not do that type of work.  Ha!  One can see that the Wikileaks documents show the CIA has Arab leaders and politicians as spies on their payroll, so why wouldn’t they have politicians from Western European nations on their payroll?  Once you take a bride, the CIA has you in their pocket and will keep using you as an asset regardless of the consequences to you.  This is how intelligence agencies work.  As Europe does not have any ban on traveling to Cuba, Ardin went to Cuba and ended up getting herself expelled for what Cuban authorities described as “subversive activities.”
 
Nevertheless, Arden told Assange on August 11th that he could stay at her apartment as she would be out of town for three days prior to Assange giving his speech (a perfect time to meet with CIA handlers), but she suddenly returns a day early, on a Friday.  Assange offers to leave since she returned early, but she refuses his offer and then they go out to eat.  Upon their return from dinner she convinces Assange to stay at her home and admittedly decides to have consensual sex with Assange the day before he is to speak at the event.  During sex, Arden claims Assange purposely broke the condom while continuing in the sex act. 
 
The next day Assange gives his speech at the event that Ardin helped arrange and she introduces Assange to Sofia Wilen.  Sofia Wilen tried to meet Assange on her own, but when that fails Ardin takes Wilen by the hand and introduces her to Assange and says the two should get to know each other.  Wilen is on internet video sitting in the front row at of Assange’s speaking engagement.  It is later discovered that Sofia Wilen is also the young protégé of Ardin and their connection is well established, going back to Ardin’s days as the Uppsala University’s “Sexual Equality Officer”.     
 
Wilen and Assange hit it off quite well after being introduced by Arden at the speaking engagement as Wilen is about ten years younger than Arden.  The pair depart the speaking engagement together where Assange leaves Ardin.  Assange and Wilen end up going to a movie.  Assange then leaves Wilen at the theater to go back to a party that Ardin was throwing later that night in his honor.  Probably the first time in history a victim had thrown a party for her rapist. Assange tells Wilen he will keep in touch and meet her later, as he is very interested in her.  He then goes to the party and Arden gives him the royal treatment.  During the party Wilen and Assange are Twittering each other.  He later meets up with Wilen and they go out to eat and then she promises to buy Assange’s train ticket for his departure.  They stop at her house to sleep and then get  money and admittedly have repeated consensual sex prior to his leaving.  But, during one of the rounds of intercourse Assange allegedly rolls over on her and begins having sex without a condom, which she admittedly goes along with but is then later angry at Assange for endangering her with the chance passing a sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy.  She continues to let him stay there and has sex with him again. 
 
She then gives him ride, buys him food and pays for his departing train ticket.  Meanwhile, Ardin and Wilen are Twittering each other and others bragging about their sexual conquest of Assange.  Neither says anything negative, but then both meet and begin talking.  All of this sex stuff starts on the 12th, but the allegations are not taken to the police until August 20th. 
 
A temporary prosecutor issues a warrant on the allegations, but upon review of the superior, the rape charges are withdrawn.  Ardin and Wilen, not being a pair that will let Assange’s indiscretions, inconsiderate behavior and chauvinistic ways go unpunished, then get a high-profile attorney from the Socialist Democrats’ party who also happens to be an individual that is writing and pushing for the passage of feminist legislation.  
 
 Assange's lawyers have been quoted as saying: "The exact content of Wilen's mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilen's nor Ardin's texts complain of rape."
 
The two women can be seen in the video of the conference that was on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWh1Mk2_GVg. At 2:00 am, while still hosting the party in Assange's honor at her home, Ardin tweeted: "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."

After going to police on August 20, she deleted the tweet not knowing it was recorded elsewhere. The post was deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se and twitter.com/annaardin but now can still be seen on a cached site at http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/AnnaArdin_cache19aug.htm.
After sex with Assange on the morning of August 17, Wilen left to buy and then cook breakfast for Assange before having sex with him again and then taking him to the train station where she paid for his ticket.

On August 18, Wilen called up Ardin and told her that she had unprotected sex with Assange. She said she was upset he didn't use a condom and was afraid she might have contracted an STD or become pregnant. This is when Ardin discovers the nefarious deed of Assange having sex with her protégé.  After comparing notes both women march off in lockstep to the police to filed charges against Assange on August 20th.


But, the establishment media and government officials, or do I repeat myself, want people to believe a professional and activist is a predator and serial rapist that went on sexual rampage.  Is it more likely true that Assange is a monster or that the CIA has some involvement with a political operative?  If I were a Socialist Democrat, I would be careful around both Ardin and Wilen if there was something I did not want the CIA to know.
 
This nonsense is going to make Sweden and its justice system look like a joke.  It certainly trivializes the offense of rape, but, it does more than just that.  It also demonstrates how the elites manipulate the criminal justice system to be abusive, selective, and unjust.  The authorities initially refused bail and were keeping Assange in solitary confinement.  Does anyone think this type of injustice would be inflicted any anyone else given the exculpatory information and other evidence that shows this is a setup, an abuse of justice and a political prosecution.  Imagine if the truth came out and it ended up being a CIA trap involving conspiracy.  The fact is that those who oppose Assange would then say he deserved what happened and they will do a better job to get him next time.   You see, those who oppose Assange want government lawlessness, and engaging in government lawlessness to maintain government lawlessness is a good investment because the execution of such a plan is nothing more than doubling down on your first bet against a sucker who does not know the big bets involve marked cards from a stacked deck in a rigged game. 
 
In the end we will find out that Assange had sex with Anna Ardin,  a sexually promiscuous radical feminist who had every intention of screwing him literally and then screwing him legally.  Her claim that a condom broke during sex is an international legal farce and the first time in the annuls of criminal justice that has such charges been the basis for an international arrest warrant and man-hunt by Interpol. The next lady, Sofia Wilen, a friend of Ardin, claims he rolled over on her and started have sex, but yet she had sex with Assange before and after her alleged “rape” by him.  This whole affair is contrived whereby a romantic dalliance, of the type for which Europeans pride themselves in their sexual sophistication, is turned into the Big Bad Wolf sexually mauling the chaste and pure Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother.  In my opinion, if you are so base in your sexual mores that you offer your vagina to a stranger in sex as casual as a handshake, then you can not act as if your vagina is the Holiest of Holies when someone mistakes you’re your willingness to engage in casual passionate eroticism as being anything more than a handshake.  This is especially true if you have demonstrated sexually willingness during a prolonged and repeated casual sexual encounters that would tend to foster sexual spontaneity. 
 
If a male had sex with a lady who then later decided to fondle him in a sexually enticing way, would she then be guilty of sexual molestation?  And, if for sake of argument you say yes, then how many police do you think would arrest and prosecutors prosecute such an incident, let alone issue a warrant for an international manhunt to Interpol whereby the “perpetrator” is kept in solitary confinement, denied bail and finally released under house arrest and subject to international extradition, rendition, torture and probably murder.  This is a case of absolute legal lawlessness on an international scale.
 
How is the justice system not a rigged game when we discover that only a few of the over 120 detainees tortured at Guantanamo Bay could be tried as their was no evidence of any committing crimes yet six of them die in custody by such causes of death as “exercise”?  How is it not a rigged game when both the Bush and Obama administrations hide behind state’s secrets doctrine to prevent being sued or prosecuted for torture and murder?  How can we allow the exact same kind of torture to occur for which we executed the military and political leaders of other countries?  Then, upon finding out that almost all the detainees were sold for a profit of $40,000 for each prisoner and were rendered to us by the same people who are drilling holes in peoples’ heads and knee caps while burning holes into their bodies and eyes, we seek to keep people in prison forever without charges to prevent lawsuits against administration officials?
 
After such torture did not result in people incriminating themselves, they then relied on the torture of others to gain information to try to get convictions to lock these people up forever.  This type of behavior is the domain of police state dictatorships, not America.  The problem with torture is that people will say whatever you want when they are tortured, and yet knowing this our government continues to torture and imprison its victims.  It is also true that governments don’t torture people to get at the truth of a matter; they torture people to force false confessions.  The Nazis, KGB, Mossad, Stasi, NKVD, Savak and Chinese government all relied on torture to get the lies they wanted to justify their crimes, not to get truth. 
 
The problem at Guantanamo Bay was so severe that military lawyers were resigning in droves.  Then, this nation allowed Bush, and now Obama, to keep prisoners looked up just so the administration’s torture proponents would not have to face legal redress by its victims.  Both administrations are trying to hide what they did by saying it was a secret program, but the detainees know exactly how they were tortured.  We actually charged and sentenced a 13 year-old child for war crimes because he allegedly threw a grenade and killed a soldier from an invading army. Obama has offered release to some detainees if they sign away their rights to seek redress through civilian courts.  Imagine telling someone after you wrongly imprisoned and tortured for 9 years that they can go free only if they sign away their legal rights to seek some small measure of restorative justice.  They have imprisoned a cook who had nothing to do with anything and no part of any operational planning.  He was just a cook for what was the armed forces of Afghanistan and the only people his unit ever had any contact with was the Northern Alliance whose rule was so criminal and filled with such atrocities that the people actually preferred the rule of the Taliban.
 
The judicial system and courts are supposed to provide justice regardless of the consequences to those who committed criminal acts and regardless of their station.  The law does not say these criminal acts are okay under these circumstances or that the Constitution ceases to apply.  But, we have a two-tier justice system that never punishes those who commit crimes on behalf of government or in their elitist interests.  Also, we very rarely prosecute any crime the administration does not want prosecuted regardless of how weak of ground the prosecution stands.  The weakness of their position is then made up by lies, perjury, piling on of charges, and other abuses of justice.  While the elite and the abuses by government, to include police brutality and perjury are never punished, the rest of the citizenry are subject to the most ruthless and unethical prosecutions by a court system that works hand-in-hand with prosecutors to go after, with reckless abandon and equal enthusiasm, petty criminals and those that stand up for their rights and the Constitution.  We have less than five percent of the world’s population, but over twenty-five percent of the world’s prison population.  Our courts are no longer interested in justice, liberty, or the U.S. Constitution, but in social and political control.  Our federal courts hide the abuses of the accused and its assaults on the U.S. Constitution in all the pre-trial hearings.  By the time a case goes to trial the government in some cases has gone as far as disallowing affirmative defenses such as the constitutional right to claim self-defense.  When the ATF conducted a military raid using heavy fire power to begin its assault on American citizens who did not resist, thereby initiating a massacre of bible students at Waco, Texas under Clinton administration, the FBI managed to lose three taped versions of the initial assault that the Branch Davidians asked be introduced as evidence to demonstrate the necessity for them to use and claim self-defense.  The tapes were “lost” along with the door the ATF shot through that would have proved the Branch Davidians were fired upon before even opening the door.  Since the door and three videos ended up missing, the government denied the attorneys for the Branch Davidians to be allowed to use self-defense as a legal defense.  The ATF then executed a Branch Davidian that was walking back to the compound from town and left his body to rot for days and be eaten by dogs. The standard of justice we now have is reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
 
While not one Branch Davidian was found guilty of the murder of a federal agent, they were all given 25 years for the charge of “Using a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony”. The felony they were charged with having committed was the murder of the federal agents.  But, since they were not guilty of that felony, then what was the felony they had committed for which they had used firearms in its commission?  The court answered that question by stating, “Our laws do not have to be logical.”  It then sent 60 year-old women, young mothers and young men that were living Old Testament lifestyles and had never touched a gun during the massacre to prison for 25 years.  Yet, Americans allowed the government, with the complicity of the mainstream media, to hide the dozens of crimes committed throughout the incident.  If more Americans went to YouTube and watched “Waco –Rules of Engagement” and “Waco – New Revelations” they would understand exactly what our government is and what it is doing and has done to women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan on a daily basis for the last ten years.  Americans would also understand why the U.S. government is trying to promote war with Iran. It is because the U.S. government seeks absolute and total control. 
 
Ruby Ridge and Waco are just two examples for which Americans could extrapolate to determine the extent of systematic corruption and abuses of government.  The ATF lied so as to get military support under a new law by claiming that David Koresch was running a methamphetimine lab.  Yet no official was held to suffer perjury even though no one ever said there was any drug involvement.  On the video “Waco –New Revelations” AFT agents are seen shooting themselves and then shooting other agents.  Their competence is highly overrated by the American people.  After incinerating all these women and children, and plowing under the evidence within a couple of hours of the fire to hide forensic evidence, the ATF then raised their flag on the Branch Davidian flagpole.

In the Michael Nifong prosecution of the Duke lacrosse players, Nifong went after the children of prominent citizens and cost each of them hundreds of thousands of dollars as the result of a political prosecution for the falsely alleged rape of a stripper in which she claimed she was raped by 30 people and then by three with the version of the story being changed in numerous and wildly contradicting versions.  DNA evidence proved all were innocent, but the prosecution continued with the case and tried to hide the DNA results while tampering with evidence and witnesses.  While the legal establishment finally disbarred Nifong and tried to distance itself from his abuses, it was only the political pressure and media spectacle that brought corrective justice.  While those in the law profession try to make such behavior appear to be an aberration, it is much closer to the norm than any will admit.  If the allegations had involved less sensational charges against less wealthy people, you can bet the innocent people would have been forced into a plea agreement through the piling on of other charges for which the prosecution would have threatened seeking the court to require the sentences for all charges to be served consecutively.   
 
The slaughter of civilians is another aspect of our militarized police state that gets swept under the rug by the corporate media.  A few police die in a month and we get stories about it being an open war on police.  Yet, the truth of the matter is that hundreds of innocent people are being imprisoned, tortured, raped, shot, and murdered in the U.S. government’s war on drugs.  It has become a matter of legal fact that during this war on drugs the CIA engaged in cocaine drug running to fund right-wing death squads and engage in terrorism.  Priests were killed in churches, nuns were imprisoned, raped and killed, and entire villages exterminated by graduates of the “School of the Americas” where deaths squads learned torture and assassination to overthrown duly elected governments. 
 
Derek Hale was a retired Marine Gunny Sergeant who served tours in Iraq.  After he retired be joined the  Pagans Motorcycle club and was participating in a “Toys for Tots” motorcycle run.  A cavalcade of police vehicles pulled up and jumped out with guns pointed at him.  Police tasered him repeatedly as he laid vomiting and unable to move.  As he was partially paralyzed and unable to control bodily function after having had hundreds of volts sent through his body he was ordered to remove his hands from his pocket.  When he was unable to comply he was shot three times in the chest.  Police were caught in lies attempting to say he was a wanted drug dealer.  They then raided his house that was hundreds of miles away but found nothing more than his Honorable Discharge papers and a pocketknife for which they then claimed as evidence that he had a switchblade knife on him that no other witness claimed having seen.  People who witnesses the execution were shocked and protested such a heinous spectacle.  The murderous police then began cursing at and threatening citizens.  Nothing happed to the police and the officer that murdered Hale was promoted.  All one needs to do is type Derek Hale into Google and the case comes up.
 
During Hurricane Katrina shots were fired and police mistakenly believing they were being fired up slaughtered unarmed people who had surrendered.  The case went on fro years before justice was provided to the families of the deceased.  One individual was an invalid that the police ended up murdering.  The only thing that prevented this injustice from being another state sanctioned murder of innocents is the fact that unknown to police a camera crew had videotaped the murderous rampage.  There have actually been instances where police testified as to other police committed murder and they were still acquitted.  In the case I am referring a mad was trying to evade police with his car.  He was stuck between two cars and kept hitting them.  One officer finally walked up and executed the citizen saying he was in fear for his life.  The other officer testified as to the fact that the officer who shot the man was never in any danger and said prior to the execution, “I had enough of this shit.”  The officer was acquitted for the murder.
 
YouTube documents unbelievable brutality of police over and over again.  The BART case was another example of the shooting and murder of an unarmed kid by police that involved a cover-up.  Immediately after the shooting the police tried to confiscate everyone’s phones but some kids escaped on the subway.  Again, this is nothing new. Police state violence has grown in proportion to our warfare state’s aggression.  We see the police state dictatorships the U.S. funds and supports torture and murder their people as Mubarak did in Egypt and are surprised when the police engage in the same behaviors in the U.S. and are protected by a judicial branch that has aligned with government against the people.
 
YouTube show a police officer plowing a man riding a bike with a football-type collision during a bike riding event.  The officer was about 230 pounds and an ex-football player. He thought it would be funny to smash into an unsuspecting rider.  He seriously injured a man her ran 20 feet to spear, but then claimed the man tried to run him down.  The injured man was arrested and charged with battery on law enforcement until the video was produced.  Then, all charges were dropped, but the brutal and injurious battery, false arrest and the making of false official reports and perjury were never punished and the officer was not punished.
 
Another YouTube video shows police turn off a camera and then a woman was beat so severely that both her eyes were closed, both her lips were swelled at least three times their normal size and her cheeks looked like she had golf balls in her mouth and her entire face was blackened with sickening bruises.  This officer claimed the woman fell.  The officer was fired, but the prosecutor’s office refused to bring charges.
 
There are hours of police brutality documented on YouTube that our fascist media refuses to acknowledge or bring to the attention of the public.  Police brutality and the covering up of murder by law enforcement have become endemic.
 
The torture of Manning for the purpose coercing false evidence is just one more example of a long litany of crimes and abuses that demands justice of the sort that would ensure such action never happens again, but instead such atrocities have become institutionalized due to a corrupt judiciary and derelict prosecutors that hide and sanction crimes committed by government.
 
Famed prosecutor and #1 New York Times bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi has written the most powerful, explosive, and thought-provoking book of his storied career. As a prosecutor dedicated to seeking justice, he delivers a non-partisan argument, free from party lines, based upon hard facts and pure objectivity. He argues that someone has to pay for the government’s criminality.  In his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” Bugliosi presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting in Iraq. His website includes a lengthy interview as to why he believes we must bring those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.  He states that in his long career he never prosecuted a case he was no absolutely sure he would win.  He argues that his case against George Bush is air-tight but is being obstructed by the ruling establishment.  Readers should Google Bugliosi’s website and learn details regarding the American invasion of Iraq by a legal mind whose logic and ethics is beyond reproach.
 
Americans will continue to be victims of U.S. justice in the same way Russians were victims of Soviet justice.  If this is the measure of justice to which Americans are subjected, in my estimation we are heading towards revolt.  Those sitting in power know what goes on and simply refuse to take corrective action.  In such a system the police become the enemy of the people and of justice itself.  What America should learn from the world is that government takes away wealth and liberty and Americans can do something about it just as Egypt and Yemen did.

I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com