Skip to content

Category: U.S. Constitution

News and Commentary

Brandon Smith: The war pigs are finally revealing themselves.

Antiwar.com: Defense Sec. Esper saw no evidence that embassies were under threat.

Nathan Robinson on how to avoid swallowing war propaganda.

Becky Akers: An embarrassment of embassies.

Target Liberty with an article on FBI spying on domestic American organizations, including CATO Institute and Campaign for Liberty.

Jacob Hornberger says the U.S. is Assassination Nation.

Andrew Bacevich: America has a Samson problem.

John Vibes: Trump brags about selling U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia.

Brett Wilkins: Report: U.S. drone strike kills 60 Afghan civilians and a Taliban commander.

Karen Kwiatkowski asks, Plan E?

David Stockman: The Donald’s assassination of Gen. Soleimani – as stupid as it gets.

William Anderson: The federal “crimes” of the college admissions scandal aren’t real crimes.

Laurence Vance asks, Why do Christian groups support anti-Christian legislation?, and has an article on unlibertarian libertarianism.

Jeff Deist has some thoughts on Tyler Cowen’s “State Capacity Libertarianism.”

Craig Murray: Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the illegal murder of Soleimani.

Sheldon Richman: Trump’s escalation imperils innocents.

Gareth Porter: Pompeo’s Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Daniel Lazare asks, Who created the Persian Gulf tinderbox?

The Last Refuge asks, Has Trump forgotten about the declassification material he delayed then deferred?

Fox Business with an article on Hunter Biden linked to 2016 identity theft involving deceased brother.

Jason Ditz: Pompeo’s falsehood-laden briefing echoed uncritically by media outlets.

Max Blumenthal: Iraqi PM reveals Soleimani was on peace mission when assassinated, exploding Trump’s lie of ‘imminent attacks’.

Jim Webb asks, When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren’t at war with?

Jack Cashill: Ukrainian 752 shoot-down mirrors fate of TWA 800.

Walter Williams: The new racism.

And Ira Katz on gratitude, and Greta Thunberg.

News and Commentary You Won’t Find in Mainstream Propaganda (“News”) Media

Jonathan Turley: A case for impeaching all living presidents of the United States

James Knight: Americans should remember the Ninth Amendment.

Ron Paul: The real bombshell of the impeachment hearings.

Ray McGovern: The pitfalls of a pit bull Russophobe.

David Stockman: The criminal Fiona Hill.

Paul Craig Roberts: Washington, the cesspool of the world, will never rat on itself.

Arjun Walia: Sharyl Attkisson explains how mainstream media brainwash the masses.

Zero Hedge: State Department releases detailed accounts of Biden-Ukraine corruption.

Margot Cleveland: Blockbusters buried in the IG report on FBI misuse of confidential sources.

Bill Sardi: Fake news strategy.

Richard Enos: Mother explains why her daughter’s death from vaccines isn’t reported in the statistics.

Danny Sjursen: America will never live down Trump’s pardons of war criminals.

Gerald Celente: What Gov. Connally told me that every American should know (regarding the JFK assassination).

Ryan McMaken: The deep state, the headless fourth branch of government.

Joe Wright: Victory for free state activist wrongfully arrested for filming police at checkpoint.

Jack Burns: One bad apple? Over 1,000 cops caught illegally accessing police database to stalk citizens.

And Robert Bridge: Sprite transgender ad proves there is a war on for children’s hearts, minds and bodies.

The Late TV Host John McLaughlin in 1970s Interviews on Nixon Impeachment

There really are some similarities between Richard Nixon’s impeachment situation and Donald Trump’s impeachment situation now, in my view.

With Nixon what I would call the entrapment scheme included CIA breaking into DNC offices, etc., and then E. Howard Hunt getting Nixon to attempt to cover up the whole thing. I believe it was a pre-planned scheme concocted by national security apparatchiks and not really of Nixon’s own doing. Why would the national security state do this? They were clearly motivated by Nixon’s talks and detente with Russia and China, much like what Trump has been trying to do now with Russia and other foreign regimes.

Because Nixon’s attempts to relax the Cold War threatened the government parasite gravy train in Washington, the national security apparatchiks wanted to get rid of Nixon. Assassinating him was obviously not good given that they knocked off a previous President, Kennedy, who had tried to have talks with Russia and push for peace. There were many skeptics of the Warren Commission’s attempt to whitewash the truth. Such an assassination being by a “lone nut” has not been believed by the non-gullible.

Currently we have national security state operatives, a.k.a. “deep state” (although it’s not so deep now, is it?) who didn’t like Trump openly criticizing the FBI’s mishandling of terrorism and 9/11 or their inability to prevent 9/11, as well as Trump’s criticism of the Iraq war.

So the national security state actively and illegally used FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and the Trump White House flunkies, they made up a fake dossier to frame The Donald, hired a special counsel to go on a fishing expedition for further framing, which nonetheless exonerated Trump. And now they are doing impeachment hearings based on one phone call, whereas they can easily take ANY phone call between Obama or Bush and others and make something up to criminalize such phone calls.

During the 1970s Jerry Williams interviewed the late TV news host John McLaughlin several times. Here are two of those interviews, in which they discuss the Nixon impeachment hearings. McLaughlin was severely defensive of Nixon, and Jerry Williams was someone who hated Nixon like you wouldn’t believe. Hearing these interviews, I am amazed by Jerry’s ability to bite his tongue and remain objective.

For those who don’t know, Jerry Williams was a talk radio personality from the 1950s to the 1990s, heard mainly in Boston on WMEX, WBZ and WRKO, and in Chicago on WBBM, and was one of my favorites on talk radio during the 1980s.

The first video is from November of 1973. At that time McLaughlin was known as Father John McLaughlin, when McLaughlin was still an active Catholic priest while working for the Nixon administration.

In this first interview, one of the callers was giving McLaughlin the third degree regarding what “mistake” Richard Nixon had made that McLaughlin was referring to, for example was it the Watergate break in? and so forth. There was a tense back and forth between McLaughlin and the caller that we rarely hear now on talk radio.

McLaughlin also discusses some aspects of the Nixon impeachment hearings that have some similarities to what we’ve been hearing in today’s news regarding Trump.

In the 2nd video, the page says it is from March of 1974, but the graphics on the beginning of the video have the date of July 1973. It’s 1974 because at one point Jerry Williams read from a newspaper column he said was from 2/27/1974. At the end of the video was the station’s on-the-hour newscast that included mention of Harold Wilson officially becoming British Prime Minister which was March 4, 1974.

Toward the beginning of the 2nd video, Fr. McLaughlin and Jerry Williams talk about McLaughlin’s “two hats,” his hat as a priest and his separate hat as a hack assistant to the President, Richard M. Nixon.

Obviously, the point of view that I expressed above regarding the national security state’s taking down Nixon is not expressed by either of these two on the radio. Even Nixon himself believed that he shouldn’t have stupidly covered up the Watergate break-in crimes of CIA, but I now see it all as planned out by them in order to ensnare Nixon toward impeachment or resignation. Gerald Ford, by the way, was a “deep stater” if there ever was one.

More Articles

Robert Wenzel and Walter Block on rent control.

Donald Boudreaux on “price gouging” in desperate situations.

The Libertarian Angle: Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling say it’s time to end America’s longest war. (video)

Patrick Eddington on Constitution Day, 2019: the hidden domestic surveillance crisis.

Dr. Mercola discusses the “chemical imbalance” myth and antidepressant harm.

The Daily Mail with an article on a cardiologist claims of the mass prescription of statins as a “public health disaster” fueled by the “cholesterol con.”

Jack Burns on the state of Florida abducting a child from his parents and forcing him to take chemo, regardless of risks.

Edward Curtin asks, Why does Chris Hedges hedge his bets?

Matt Agorist on “near murder”: cops force k-9 to rip unarmed man to shreds as he slept.

On Government Bureaucrats Committing “Treason” Against the People of the States

Law professor Jonathan Turley seems to be misinterpreting some tweets by Donald Trump, as well as showing a lack of understanding of Trump’s use of the word “treason.”

First, Turley writes,

President Donald Trump appears intent on fueling calls for impeachment with unhinged statements calling some who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as possible “traitors” and promising to “turn the tables” and to “bring them to justice”. While the President could simply relish the lack of findings of any criminal conduct, he has again adopted disturbing rhetoric that is reminiscent more of authoritarian regimes than American administrations.

But the Trump tweets that Turley is referring to are these:

“Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue.”

“It was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened.”

“It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even spying or treason. This should never happen again!”

Turley is misunderstanding just whom Trump is talking about when it comes to “treason.” Trump is not talking about “some who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” to quote Turley, as acting treasonously.

While Trump did refer to “18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters” on the Mueller team, he was not talking about them. No, Trump is referring to the ones involved in “an Illegally Started Hoax” as the ones who acted treasonously. The ones who promoted made-up allegations in the Steele dossier and pushed that to the media and fraudulently obtained FISA spying warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign and for political reasons.

So when Trump is tweeting, “time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even spying or treason,” he is referring to James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and Sally Yates especially, the four who signed the FISA warrant applications knowing that the Steele dossier they relied upon was in fact unreliable and unverified information, and that it heavily used oppo research paid for by the Hillary campaign. Others involved in the scheme included John Brennan, Loretta Lynch, and Peter Strzok.

In the U.S. Constitution, the section on Treason (Article III, Section 3) states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

As Thomas DiLorenzo pointed out, the phrase “United States” is referring to the states that make up the various states in the union, in plural form. It is not referring to a single unit. And the “treason” is when, for example, bureaucrats of the U.S. government in Washington, D.C. use the apparatus of war making against the states (“Treason against the United States”), or against the people of the states.

So as I wrote here, the “intelligence community” and national security bureaucrats’ FISA spying against people or citizens of the United States, committed by political apparatchiks in Washington and for purely political reasons, really does fit the constitutional definition of “Treason,” because the FISA spying (in which FISA stands for “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”) is a part of the government’s war making apparatus. “Levying war against them,” as the Constitution notes.

So, Turley is erroneously suggesting that Trump is acting like an “authoritarian” dictator who will jail a disloyal, disobedient subject for “treason,” whereas it’s really the other way around. The bureaucrats in the government (Brennan, Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok, McCabe, etc.) who turned the spying war-making apparatus against other citizens are the ones who acted treasonously. It was they who were the apparatchiks of an “authoritarian regime” in Washington.

Look What the Bra-Burners Have Wrought: Women Merchants of Death

According to Politico, four major military/security contractors are now headed by Women CEOs. Marilyn Hewson of Lockheed Martin, Phebe Novakovic of General Dynamics, Kathy Warden of Northrop Grumman, and Leanne Caret of Boeing’s “defense” (sic) division. So I hope they are proud of their accomplishments, with blood on their hands as the Merchants of Death continue to supply the Pentacon racket in its bombing and destroying cities, towns and villages, schools and churches, businesses and homes and murdering one innocent human being after another throughout the Middle East, Asia and beyond.

Related posts and articles: Do We Need More Warmongers in the U.S. Congress?

Mainstream Media Whitewashing and Fawning Over War Criminal George H.W. Bush

Government and Military’s Faithfulness to Constitutional Oath

The Drone Strike Initiators Are Feeling Bad About Killing Innocent People?

And as I wrote in my article, U.S. Government Interventionism and Wars Provoke More Violence: NYC Bombing,

The U.S. government and other Western governments’ own terror attacks on the Muslim world continue to this day.

See U.S. airstrike kills family of eight, U.S. drone strike kills three civilians and four “suspects,” US admits Syria airstrike that killed 46 but denies targeting mosque, Panic spreads in Iraq, Syria as record numbers of civilians are reported killed in U.S. strikesU.S. airstrikes kill at least 43 civilians in Syria’s RaqqaU.S. military airstrikes kill many more civilians in just 48 hours, and U.S. military battles Syrian rebels armed by CIA.

Western government violence and drones target weddings, funerals, rescuers, and civilian hospitals.

And it continues, even escalates under Donald Trump.

The women’s movement has shown that women, too, can be at the top. (Of killing, death, and destruction. Good one, ladies.)

Who Has Been Treasonous?

A confused judge recently referred to the entrapped Trump associate Mike Flynn as acting “treasonously,” and over the past year several media ignoramuses have referred to Donald Trump as “treasonous,” despite no evidence of “Russia collusions,” etc. Here is an article that I wrote 8 years ago, on how the government bureaucrats of the national security state in Washington commit treason against the people. (I had to change several links because it’s so long ago, and/or find the Wayback Machine page for a link.)

The Treasonous U.S. Government

December 28, 2010

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

The ongoing WikiLeaks affair has been an exposé of who really understands the principles that define America, and who is truly confused. The “classified” leakers and their publishers (who include the New York Times and the Guardian) are merely attempting to expose the State and its crimes as well as its outright ridiculousness and irrationality. The ones who defend the State’s intrusions abroad, the killing of innocents, the occupations of foreign lands, the removal of due process through renditions, indefinite detentions and assassinations without cause or even suspicion, are the ones who want to suppress any exposing of those State crimes.

It is as though the defenders of the U.S. government’s secrecy and cover-ups think they are in countries like Iran, in which the act of revealing the crimes of the State is an act of blasphemy and deserving of one’s being stoned to death. These obedient defenders of the State are truly against moral values and the rule of law, yet they are the ones who refer to alleged leaker Bradley Manning as having committed “treason” against America.

The hopelessly flawed U.S. Constitution addresses treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Worse, the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines treason as:

1: the betrayal of a trust

2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family.

Unfortunately, the mainstream view of “treason” has been one of “defiance of State authority,” or disobedience. The WikiLeaker’s actions have not gone against America, but they apparently have been challenging to State authority, and that’s a no-no in authoritarian societies. It is in such societies that the State has access into every detail of every individual’s private life, as the Washington Post recently uncovered, but the citizens are not allowed to know what their government is up to. The great 19th Century individualist Lysander Spooner clarified some of these issues in his publication, No Treason – The Constitution of No Authority.

In my view, acts of treason do not necessarily consist of “levying war” against one’s country or countrymen – if that were the case, then I suppose the American Revolutionaries were acting treasonously against Britain – but acts of treason can be those that go against the interests of one’s countrymen.

So to me, just about every act of the U.S. government since its beginning has gone against America’s interests, that is, if one believes that America’s interests are those of preserving liberty, and that the government’s purpose is to protect life, liberty and property. For instance, after the Southern States peacefully seceded from the American “union” in 1861, President Abe Lincoln “levied war” against them, that included his killing thousands of innocent civilians and burning entire cities to the ground. Lincoln’s need for greater centralized State control and dominance, and obsession with compelling millions into an association to which they did not want to belong, was worth his depraved acts of aggression, violence and murder. Lincoln acted treasonously, against his fellow Americans and the basic values of the America that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and their fellow Revolutionaries and secessionists-from-Britain believed in, and against the interests of the Southern secessionists who believed in freedom and prosperity.

The endless list of examples of treason by the U.S. government against Americans includes President Wilson’s unnecessarily entering the U.S. into World War I. When you take your country into other countries’ wars, you are at that point making your population vulnerable to hostilities, in addition to squandering away public funds that are not intended to be used for the benefit of other countries. Other examples include FDR’s New Deal of fascist/socialist property confiscation, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by the two Bush presidents, President Obama’s new medical takeover, and so on. Those intrusions and acts of aggression by agents of the U.S. government against Americans and foreigners have all gone against the interests of Americans and against our freedom and prosperity. They are treasonous acts. They are all crimes committed by the U.S. government against the lives, liberty and property of many millions of Americans for many decades, and continuing.

The State’s Treasonous Foreign Policy

Regarding U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning’s alleged leaking and months of solitary confinement, former Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski writes about the hysteria of the federal State and its flunkies and defenders, and compares the alleged whistleblower soldier with actual convicted spies against America:

Charged but not convicted of any crime, American PFC Brad Manning is being held largely incommunicado at Quantico, without bedding or permission to exercise in his cell. He is purposely deprived of human contact. His current treatment – based on unproven charges – is far harsher than the treatment and sentences of four famous and convicted US federal-level spies.

Former FBI agent Robert Hanssen was arrested in early 2001, and charged with selling secrets to the Soviets during the preceding two decades. Upon arrest, Hanssen confessed and was able to hire as an attorney the extremely competent Plato Cacheris, who negotiated a plea bargain. After an entire career spent profiting from the sale of classified information to the Soviets and later the Russian Federation, he is held at Supermax in isolation. Well, not exactly like Brad Manning – Hanssen has bedding, books, and exercise.

The case of career CIA employee and horrific spy/profiteer, Aldrich Ames, is also instructive. After his arrest and lawyer-facilitated plea bargain, Ames was not held forever in isolation at a Supermax-style facility. Instead, he resides at Allenwood Federal Prison with the general population, and is able to receive visitors and to correspond with people outside the prison on issues of current interest.

Two other famous convicted federal-level spies of the same era include Army Warrant Officer James Hall and Army Colonel George Trofimoff. These military officers who sold secrets were not tortured, nor were they deprived of their constitutional rights to a fair defense. Even though they are convicted military spies, they are serving less intensive punishments than either Ames or Hanssen, and were treated far better than PFC Manning.

Manning is not accused of selling secrets, or profiting from their release. Washington has made charges; it suspects Manning is partly responsible for publicly embarrassing the federal security apparatus. But as the Pentagon and the State Department both admit, even if Manning was the source of some government documents, the revelations did not seriously impact government operations.

Some critics of the WikiLeaks release have referred to Manning’s alleged actions as “treasonous,” and compromising American security. But in actuality, the leaked documents have done nothing but expose the crimes of the State, which is what the Press used to do before that institution apparently merged itself into the State apparatus. The real “treason” that is happening is that of the agents of the State acting against Americans’ liberty and prosperity.

While the recent document leaker has not compromised America’s security in any way whatsoever, we can take a closer look at how the U.S. government’s agents just over the past 20 years have been the real culprits in compromising the security of Americans. That includes President George H.W. Bush’s taking the U.S. into war against Iraq in 1990-91, the U.S. government’s and United Nations’ sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s and how those hostilities against Iraqis have backfired against the U.S., and George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq and against Americans’ civil liberties.

In July 1990, then-Bush Administration U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and was said to have given the Bush Administration’s “green light” for Hussein to invade Kuwait, although, while some analysts disagree on whether that was intended by the Administration, other analysts believe that that was how Hussein interpreted the message. On August 2, 1990, Hussein began his invasion of Kuwait, followed in the next months by the U.S. military setting up their war on Iraq to begin January 15, 1991.

The Bush Administration had a well-prepared PR campaign to sell the Persian Gulf War, in which Bush took the U.S. military into war overseas against a country that was of no threat to the U.S.

Would a politician like the elder Bush tell a foreign leader that he, Bush, would look the other way if Hussein invaded Kuwait, only to then go and invade Iraq as though that was Bush’s intention in the first place? Well, that seems to be the way politicians, statists, internationalists, and government expansionists go about business, given the power they have as monopolists in territorial protection. And also, Bush probably felt safe politically and legally, given how so many Reagan Administration officials had gotten away with their schemes of selling arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan Contras in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s.

In author James Bovard’s analysis of the U.S. military’s bombing campaign on Iraq in 1991 and subsequent sanctions on Iraq, Bovard cites the Washington Post which quoted Pentagon officials that the bombing campaign targeted civilian infrastructure, particularly electrical facilities and water and sewage treatment facilities, as well as military targets. This was an intentional strategy of the U.S. military as a means of “disabling Iraqi society at large,” that supposedly would compel the Iraqi people to get rid of their leader Saddam Hussein.

As Bovard pointed out,

A Harvard School of Public Health team visited Iraq in the months after the war and found epidemic levels of typhoid and cholera as well as pervasive acute malnutrition. The Post noted,

In an estimate not substantively disputed by the Pentagon, the [Harvard] team projected that ‘at least 170,000 children under five years of age will die in the coming year from the delayed effects’ of the bombing.

The U.S. military understood the havoc the 1991 bombing unleashed. A 1995 article entitled ‘The Enemy as a System’ by John Warden, published in the Air Force’s Airpower Journal, discussed the benefits of bombing ‘dual-use targets’ and noted,

A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm…. [Destruction] of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate.

The article concluded that the U.S. Air Force has a ‘vested interest in attacking dual-use targets’ that undermine ‘civilian morale.’

The bombing campaign and a decade of sanctions throughout the 1990s led to widespread disease and skyrocketing cancer and child mortality rates, which by 1999 were said to lead to the deaths of approximately 500,000 Iraqis.

The U.S. government’s invasion and bombing of Iraq in 1991 and sanctions, disease and death, as well as the U.S. government’s expansionism of military bases and other government apparatus on Muslim lands such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, and other intrusions and interventions are what have inflamed anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East and Asia. These actions of the U.S. government have been provocations against the inhabitants of those foreign lands, the effects of which have consisted of retaliations and attempted retaliations against Americans. In other words, we Americans have been made increasingly vulnerable to the aggressions of foreigners because of the aggressions that our government officials have been committing against people in foreign lands.

But rather than ending the murderous sanctions, occupations and other U.S. government intrusions and interventions on foreign lands, the response of the robotic, comatose U.S. government officials to the September 11, 2001 attacks was to increase the aggression, intrusions and violence overseas even more, as well as impose policies of rendition and indefinite detention and assassination of people without due process, without just cause or even actual suspicion – the George W. Bush Administration knowingly apprehended suspects at random and knowingly kept innocent people detained for years in Gitmo – as well as start a campaign against Americans and their what-used-to-be-known-as “inalienable rights” and “civil liberties.” In other words, every action and policy of the U.S. government, especially since 1990, has made Americans less safe and more vulnerable. We are less safe because of the provocations by our government of more terrorism against us, and we are less safe because of the abuses of our own government against us and our liberty. This is what I mean by treasonous actions of the U.S. government.

And how has the U.S. government been treating Bradley Manning for months, someone who has not been tried or convicted of anything, and whose alleged actions have harmed no one, but who allegedly dared to expose the agents of the State for what they are? Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has been doing an exceptional job writing about Manning’s treatment.

According to Greenwald, Manning’s attorney David Coombs, and MIT researcher David House, Manning has been held in 23-hour-per-day solitary confinement for over five months, with one hour per day allowed for “exercise,” which consists of walking in circles in a small area, is made to respond to guards’ checking him every five minutes, is made to endure constant sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, has very little contact with others and is deprived of knowledge of events in the outside world. In a more recent update, Greenwald noted,

…And in the wake of my report, there have been several reports of the damage to Manning that is now apparent, including in The Guardian (“Bradley Manning’s health deteriorating in jail, supporters say”), The Independent (Manning ”in weak health and wracked with anxiety”), The Daily Beast (“The conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held would traumatize anyone”), and from his lawyer (“who says the extended isolation — now more than seven months of solitary confinement — is weighing on his client’s psyche . . . . His treatment is harsh, punitive and taking its toll, says Coombs”)…

What the agents of the U.S. government are doing psychologically and physically to this one individual is how criminals, barbarians, degenerates and sickos treat other human beings. But the reason he is being held in solitary confinement and why he is being abused in such a sick way is that our government officials are responding not to any real threat to Americans’ security, but to an uncovering of U.S. government officials’ real character.

The American prisons aren’t even treating their convicted rapists, child molesters and murderers with that kind of cruelty and physical deprivation, which is particularly loathsome given that Manning has done nothing wrong and has harmed no one. However, this is in line with the U.S. military intentionally bombing water and sewage treatment facilities with the purpose of causing disease and deaths amongst the Iraqi civilian population in 1991, a scheme that comes from sick-minded barbarians. But in their emotional, gut reactions to the news about leaks of State “secrets,” the authoritarians who love and worship the State have made the uncovering of the true nature of today’s agents of the State a matter of blasphemy worthy of the sinner’s being stoned to death in a public courtyard. “We are all Iranians now,” the Palins and the Gingriches might as well declare.

But is merely uncovering the State’s true nature really a crime? Shouldn’t we instead penalize the agents of the State who start wars unnecessarily and thus make their own population more vulnerable to retaliation, as the warmongers did with the war against Iraq of 1991, and all the repercussions and blowback we have been suffering because of it? (And oh, what a coincidence the timing of those actions coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and a sudden lack of an enemy to justify the always expanding military welfare state, but that’s a different discussion for a different essay.) The devastation and physical destruction, the human toll and financial cost of the entirely political decision to invade Iraq in 1990 have treasonously damaged America. (And oh, what another coincidence that the 1990 warmonger’s son also started an unnecessary war against Iraq in 2003, and for solely political reasons, that would cause even further blowback against us!) These actions have damaged America in the most criminal sense, and these actions against America are treasonous.

To protect us from further damage to our liberty, security and property, we need more Bradley Mannings, and more WikiLeaks, and much less centralized power in Washington, given that just about every action of the U.S. government has been treasonous, against America and our founding principles, and is constant, daily proof that the Anti-Federalists were right.