The Secretary of Fear was invited by the US Air Force to witness a test of an advanced insect spy drone that closely resembles a dragonfly on Sunday.
The event took place on the National Mall in Washington D.C.. Most tourists and residents of the capital had taken cover on account of a hurricane alert.
SecFear told Fear Department Blog, "We like to send in the mosquito drones to observe protests and monitor troublemakers."
Vanessa Alarcon, a university student who was working at an anti-war rally in the American capital last month, told the Washington Post: "I heard someone say, 'Oh my God, look at those.'
"I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?'. They looked like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects."
Bernard Crane, a lawyer who was at the same event, said he had "never seen anything like it in my life". He added: "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical or is that alive?'"
The incident has similarities with an alleged sighting at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York when one peace march participant described on the internet seeing "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th Avenue".
Entomologists suggest that the objects are indeed dragonflies. Jerry Louton, an expert at the National Museum of Natural History, said Washington was home to large, impressively-decorated dragonflies that "can knock your socks off".
However, he admitted that the dragonfly theory did not explain claims made independently by three people at the Washington event.
"The source who leaks defense information to the press commits an offense; the reporter who holds onto defense material commits an offense; and the retired official who uses defense material in his memoirs commits an offense."
- Harold Edgar and Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. in "The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense
Information," Columbia Law Review, May 1973, vol. 73, pp. 929-1087
Alongside surveillance and sexual harassment lawsuits, United States Department of Fear considers the Espionage Act of 1917 one of the government's most important tools in our war against WikiLeaks.
Persons Guilty Under the Espionage Act
In fact, we have urged the Justice Department to throw the Espionage Act at anyone who assists WikiLeaks. Clearly, anyone who helps to disseminate government secrets released by WikiLeaks should be found guilty under the Espionage Act. For example, persons guilty under the Act must be assumed to include everyone who is responding to this recent appeal by WikiLeaks:
Friends of the Department Won't Face Prosecution Under the Act
Technically, the Espionage Act applies to retired officials who publish government secrets in their memoirs. Former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld recently Tweeted:
Of course, Donald Rumsfeld has nothing to worry about. Provisions of the Espionage Act do not apply to officials covered by Look Forward Not Backward Doctrine.
For the benefit of prosecuting attorneys at the Department of Justice and in the interest of intimidating persons who might be tempted to follow WikiLeaks, we're posting the text of the Act:
The Espionage Act of 1917
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled
Title I
ESPIONAGE
Section 1
That:
(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or
(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or
(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this title; or
(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Section 2
Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:
(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years; and
(b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval of military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification of any place, or any other information relating to the public defence, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years.
Section 3
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.
Section 4
If two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of section two or three of this title, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. Except as above provided conspiracies to commit offences under this title shall be punished as provided by section thirty-seven of the Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine.
Section 5
Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Section 6
The President in time of war or in case of national emergency may by proclamation designate any place other than those set forth in subsection:
(a) of section one hereof in which anything for the use of the Army or Navy is being prepared or constructed or stored as a prohibited place for the purpose of this title: Provided, That he shall determine that information with respect thereto would be prejudicial to the national defence.
Section 7
Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial under sections thirteen hundred and forty-two, thirteen hundred and forty-three, and sixteen hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes as amended.
Section 8
The provisions of this title shall extend to all Territories, possessions, and places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or not contiguous thereto, and offences under this title, when committed upon the high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the territorial limits thereof shall be punishable hereunder.
Section 9
The Act entitles "An Act to prevent the disclosure of national defence secrets," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby repealed.
Excerpts transribed, but not written by
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm
Originial source is United States Government
Prophetically, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III said in a 2004 address to Harvard Law School:
"In the fight for government secrecy,
the Espionage Act is our big stick. Its relevance is likely to increase. I'm confident that future American leaders will regard the 1917 Act as a more important document than the
Constitution."
In December 2011 the House Justice Committee discussed the implications of the Espionage Act for the prosecution of WikiLeaks, its leader Julian Assange, and their co-conspirators in the media.
"...these lemonade stand shutdowns seem to be getting more and more common. If you set up a stand for your kids, just be prepared for a visit from the cops."
Operation Cola Freedom
In mid-July an elite unit of DoF Intelligence -- they had been assigned to read the personal emails of politically active Americans -- learned that members of the Lemonade Liberation Army (LLA) planned to distribute low-priced lemonade on Capitol Hill in August.
The US Dept. of Fear enjoys a longstanding partnership with American's leading cola drink manufacturers. On account of this mutually beneficial relationship, we have long been committed to closing down lemonade
stands throughout the country. The moment the intel came in, SecFear set the gears of 'Operation Cola Freedom' in motion.
The intention of this article is to provide the American People with important background about Operation Cola Freedom, and explain what's at stake for America in the "War on Lemonade."
Background: "The War on Lemonade"
Up until the 1980s kids throughout America were allowed to sell lemonade on the street in the summertime. At that time, Lemonade stands were just about as ubiquitous as crack houses. Of course, that was before we asked television news stations to alert parents to the threat of child abduction on a nightly basis. For the most part, street-corner lemonade stands are today a thing of the past.
Most American children spent the summer of 2011 safely inside their homes watching television or playing video games while they drank Coca-Cola and snacked on Oreo cookies. We've come a long way. Today when American kids need refreshment, their parents know enough to buy Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, or 7-Up. Parents don't have time to make lemonade. And parents know it's too risky to let their children do it.
The Lemonade Liberation Army put this highly profitable trend at risk, threatening the growth of America's highly successful beverage and food conglomerates. Fortunately, the LLA violated any number of Department of Commerce policies, the regulations of various other departments, including health and safety statues.
Price
Intelligence reports suggest that LLA calculated it could charge $0.10 per cup of lemonade and still make a profit. If the American public learned about this, they might suspect Coca-Cola and Pepsi were overcharging them. We're well aware that the jobless masses are sick and tired of having to scrounge for $2.50 in coins to buy a can of Sprite. The LLA threatened to create an explosive situation. Keep in mind that the Lemonistas were apprehend only days after young rioters looted London.
Distribution of non-HFCS, non-chemically-sweetened products
A source within the LLA told us that LLA lemonade was sweetened with sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). We passed along this information to the Department of Agriculture (DOA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They responded promptly, alerting various corporate lobby groups. Congress promptly approved funding for Operation Cola Freedom.
The Department of Agriculture issued the following statement:
"American taxpayers subsidize agribusinesses (i.e. Monsanto) and industrial-scale farms so they can grow genetically modified corn. Subsidized American GMO corn is sold for the manufacture of HFCS at a sufficiently low cost to undermine otherwise highly competitive sugar farmers in the developing world (Haiti, Laos, Egypt, Ghana, etc.).... The State Department is aware of the situation.... In addition, non-compliance with the HFCS mandate has the potential to reduce the rates of certain chronic diseases in the population. Any significant improvement in the health of the American public would impact the profitability of our partners in the American pharmaceutical industry. Accordingly, we have notified the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO)."
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern that no Aspartame-based diet sweeteners (Nutrasweet, Splenda, etc.) had been used in manufacturing the LLA lemonade. Aspartame contributes not only to the bottom line of its manufacturer, but its scary chemical profile renders the chemical a godsend to the pharmaceutical industry. Accordingly, the FDA notified the relevant industry lobby groups. The lobbyists pressured members of Congress to transfer $87 million dollars from the Social Security Administration account to the Homeland Security budget: Operation Cola Freedom was born.
Additionally, the FDA has reviewed videos made by our security forces during Operation Cola Freedom. FDA is now concerned that LLA members could be heard promoting "nutritious lemonade" and one member referred to "lemons" as healthy. Clearly, several LLA members made illegal health claims about lemons. Accordingly, FDA informs us that additional charges will be pressed. An FDA official has asked us to remind the American people that "lemons are not a drug and cannot be advertised to treat or cure any disease."
Our security forces fully supported the execution of Operation Cola Freedom. In fact, as this officer makes clear, there's nothing they won't do for us in The War on Lemonade.
Sam Buckmeister, director of Operation Cola Freedom, wants to thank the Word Trade Organization (WTO) and the American Beverage Association. The United States Department of Fear would like to congratulate its Washington D.C.
based security forces for the success of Operation Cola Freedom.
To keep up with recent crackdowns in the War on Lemonade, you will want to bookmark this map.
___
For now (but not for much longer) the Lemonade Liberation Army has a Facebook Page. Special thanks to this blogger for alerting DoF to one of the videos.
With three exceptions (Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul), staff of DoF are inspired by the candidates in the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries.
The obvious favorite around the water-coolers of DoF Center is Texas Governor Rick Perry. But one can sense continued excitement about Dr. Michele Bachmann.
Too often, ordinary citizens -- troublemakers -- have turned to
libraries and librarians to arm themselves with facts and figures.
Although we have not convinced the states to sell off all the public
libraries, an important step towards making libraries less useful is to
eliminate up-to-date reference books.
We want to express our admiration for Director Robert Groves of the Census Bureau. Groves recently elected to terminate publication of an immensely popular economics-related fact-book: “Statistical Abstract off the United States.” Many non-experts and journalists consider the book an indispensable resource about the US economy.
I am a devoted fan of the Stat Abstract. In four decades of reporting, I have grabbed it thousands of times to find a fact, tutor myself or answer a pressing question. Its figures are usually the start of a story, not the end. They suggest paths of inquiry, including the meaning and reliability of the statistics themselves (otherwise, they can mislead or tell false tales). The Stat Abstract has been a stalwart journalistic ally. With some interruptions, the government has published it since 1878. No more. The Stat Abstract is headed for the chopping block. The 2012 edition, scheduled for publication later this year, will be the last, unless someone saves it.
In our view, it's liberal economist Paul Krugman who makes the best case for terminating "Statistical Abstract":
Killing the publication for the sake of a tiny saving would be a truly gratuitous step toward a dumbed-down country.
"Timendi causa est nescire" (Ignorance causes fear) is the moto of the United States Department of Fear.
In the following video, a WalMart customer relations officer provides information to a customer about our partnership with WalMart. Our purpose is to keep the American People conscious of national security issues at all times. If we can alert them to terror threat even while they're scrounging for affordable food and clothing, so much the better!
We understand that some WalMart stores are playing this next video continuously. We love Janet:
WalMart's participation in the program is patriotic, but it also makes good business sense for three reasons:
This kind of program lubricates the relationship between a large corporation and the government. WalMart knows it's unlikely that the Justice Department will pursue an anti-trust case against the company anytime soon. As you may recall, the US Supreme Court recently ruled against female employees of the store, siding with WalMart.
Some psychologists believe that fear makes people spend money more freely. By reminding shoppers of the looming terror threat, shoppers may be willing to spend more money. They will rake up credit card debt today, knowing there could be no tomorrow.
When a cabinet secretary creates a special announcement for WalMart, mentioning the store by name, the implication is that the United States government considers WalMart is respectable establishment. That's the implicit message that every shopper hears. Shoppers realize that if the government trusts WalMart to serve as full-fledged national security partner, surely a consumer can trust the store to provide the lowest prices. (The cost of low prices to the community and republic be damned).
As George W. Bush taught the American People, the most patriotic response to the threat of terrorism is to go shopping. And throughout a decade of free-spending and safety from terrorism, Americans discovered the wisdom of those words.
At 07:00 Wednesday 6 July 2011 the Office of the Secretary of Fear received a bulletin from a British spy agency suggesting that the terrorists might be planning to send women with exploding breast implants to attack us. Recognizing the shock value and timeliness of this threat, the Department immediately passed this intelligence along to the media.
On behalf of the United States Department of Fear and its partners, I urge every American to take this warning seriously.
Because the threat of exploding breast implants coincides with a looming debt crisis, it's not enough to be scared, we need you to act: 1) Phone your Congressman and implore him not to cut defense spending; 2) Watch Fox to keep yourself focused on this threat to the Homeland; 3) Use social media to share your fear of exploding breasts with friends and family; 4) Petition FDA Director Suzette Lazo to approve Securatine without further delay.
For updates, visit the Department's twitter account:
SWAT team members, on look out for dancers, patrol the Jefferson Memorial on July 4, 2011. (E. Syme photo)
It was feared that a group might start dancing in the vicinity of the Thomas Jefferson monument on the Fourth of July. Because the Department of Fear has been concerned about this possibility, we sent Easton Syme to monitor the situation.
Syme reports:
There were about twenty police vehicles in the vicinity of the monument.
No access to the monument was permitted to anyone who had not had their bags screened.
Persons thought to be predisposed to dancing were ordered to present identification.
Several civilians with "Homeland Security" badges were present.
The Washington DC Department of Infectious Diseases sent some vehicles to the monument. That was a wise precaution as many dancers would likely be carriers of the HIV virus, and a police officer might get bitten.
Although the monument was fenced off, and everyone entering the Jefferson Memorial was screened for weapons, Homeland Security took the extra precaution of sending a SWAT team to patrol the inside of the monument. Several members of the SWAT team wielded machine guns.
Syme says that the purpose of the SWAT team was twofold: First, to deter anyone who may have been inclined to dance. Second, to remind the general public that these are dangerous times, and that another terrorist attack might very well be imminent.
When asked to comment about the dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III said, "We welcome every opportunity to expand our national security footprint throughout the nation's capital and beyond. Jefferson Memorial is our newest stomping ground."
These videos document the arrest of dancers at the Jefferson Memorial in June 2011:
Harold Koh speaks and acts in concert with the approach pioneered by John Yoo.
But defending the extralegal initiation of a war takes a lot more guts than writing up a justification for the president's right to torture terror suspects. That's why the staff of the United States Department of Fear admire the second even more than the first. We think Obama's Yoo is...
The feds have scheduled the first ever national test of the Emergency Alert System. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission will conduct the test Wednesday, Nov. 9 at 2 p.m. EST. The duration may last up to three-and-a-half minutes.
A national alert enables the president to break into regular broadcasts and address the American public during emergencies. One has never been issued in the history of the system, established in 1951 by then President Harry Truman during the Cold War....
The first test of this system will amount to a three minute "national meditation" on the threats to our way of life.
We believe Nov 9th is the best day of the year to conduct annual tests, as it so close to election day. (We prefer that fears about national security threats rather than the state of the economy inform voter choices on election day.) We're excited by the last line of the article, that reads:
After the first test in November, weekly or monthly tests are likely to become routine, according to the FCC.
The more frequently such tests are conducted, the better for keeping America on its toes. As for the first test, we have marked the day on our calendars. We suspect that publicity leading up to the test -- the anticipation -- will generate as much anxiety as the test itself.
The death of Osama bin Laden was something to celebrate, but it leaves us without a high-profile enemy. One idea we're tossing around is funding a new Cold War. What future world power would you like to see us picking fights with?
China
35%
India
6%
Brazil
8%
Turkey
8%
Let's stick with the Global War on Terror.
13%
Let's pursue domestic threats more agressively so as not to remain dependent on foreign enemies.
24%
Let's continue to militarize the war on drugs and look south of the border.
24%
Let's go with Israel's recommendation
42%
Total votes: 45 The survey was conducted May 16-26, 2011.
Following the death of Bin Laden, Americans were given a chance to have a say on who our next enemy should be.
We're please that so many of you (35%) want us to pick a fight with China. But hold your horses! We're still learning from China. Moreover, making an enemy of largest trading partner is problematic for our partners on Wall Street.
The most popular option is the most appealing to your government: The most popular response among the respondents (42%) believe America should outsource the process of designating our future enemy to our closest friend and ally situated in the most volatile region of the world. Indeed, Israel is ideally situated to identify any future enemy for the United States.
Almost half of respondents are enthusiastic about combating local threats to the Homeland. We are pleased that solid constituencies support pursuing domestic threats more aggressively (24%) and escalating the War on Drugs (24%).
The principle we draw from our survey is that if the enemy isn't close to home, Americans yearn to go with the advice of their toughest friend.
On the way to work this morning DoF staff member Bob "Blazer" McRoy spotted some hawkers selling Bin Laden death t-shirts. DoF staff members rushed out to buy them. By the end of lunchtime the hawker had sold out.
Want one? The vendor assures us more are on order from China.
To honor the memory of the death of Osama bin Laden and America's sacrifices in the war on terror, the US should pressure the UN to declare May 1st a new kind of public holiday.
Three weeks ago a remarkable scene unfolded outside DoF Center on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.. A DoF staff member recorded a video (below) of young Americans celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden. But such joyous occasions are likely to be few and far between. We believe a new national holiday could serve to annually rekindle memories of those sweet tears of happiness that were shed on May 1, 2011, helping to sustain enthusiasm for the Global War on Terror through the decades.
Such a holiday would do good in more ways than one. Presently many people around the world hold inappropriate celebrations on May 1 or May Day. Wikipedia notes that "in many countries, May Day is synonymous with International Workers' Day, or Labour Day, a day of political demonstrations and celebrations organised by communists, anarchists, socialists, unionists, and other activist groups." May Day is a dangerous anachronism, a relic of another century. The best way to consign the anti-capitalist spirit of May Day to history's dustbin is to displace it.
This September the president of the United States will stand before before the General Assembly of the United Nations and remind the world of the what America achieved on May 1, 2011. The United States Department of Fear believes that President Obama should then ask the countries of the world to join with America in declaring May 1st "International Counter-Terrorism Day" or "Death to Terrorists Day." The president should say that any countries that don't establish the new May 1st holiday are making a choice to stand against us.
Celebrating the death of bin Laden outside the White House.
National celebrations marking the death of bin Laden were not some kind of "grand finale." A better analogy is the half-time show at a football game. We've still got a game to play.
Republicans, having huddled, have a bold new strategy for the second half. Politico describes a muscular Republican-sponsored bill that would kick off the next the next phase of the War on Terror:
... critics say the Republican-sponsored measure amounts to the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II – at a moment when counter-terrorism efforts are succeeding, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq, and about to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. And, they say, it gives Obama and any successor carte blanche to attack any individual or any nation without further approval from Congress.
“The U.S. is trying to finish up and pull out of two wars right now [but] Congress is involved in declaring, for the first time in 70 years, worldwide war,” said Chris Anders, a legislative liaison for the American Civil Liberties Union.
In addition, Anders said, the legislation would result in “a huge transfer of authority from the Congressional Branch to the Executive Branch” that would give “ authority to this president and all future presidents to use military power, war power wherever a terrorism suspect resides.”
The half-time party was great fun, but it's time to get back on the field. Call your Congressman and demand a declaration of "total worldwide war" before it's too late.
The proposed "World Wide War Authorization" (H.R. 1540, Sec. 1034) marks a vast improvement over the dated 2001 version known as "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (P.L. 107‐40). The former was more limited in scope.
Following is the most important section of the new improved war authorization before Congress:
SEC. 1034 AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL‐ QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCI3 ATED FORCES.
Congress affirms that— (1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with
al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad; (2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note); (3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who— (A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and (4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
If you like, you can compare the old version to the new one here.
Don't forget to call your Congressman. Tell him you're scared shitless of Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula. Tell him that that the death of bin Laden marks a rare opportunity for the president to expand the War on Terror and you want Congress to give Obama and his successors the power to do just that.
Got a lot of questions on your mind concerning the killing of OBL? Contact us about arranging your mandatory mental health examination. President's orders.
Last week a number of Americans questioned the way the Navy SEAL team dealt with Osama bin Laden. On Sunday evening the president of the United States finally put his foot down, declaring his intention subject these troublemakers to mandatory mental health examinations.
President Obama announced the new public health policy during an interview on the popular CBS News program "60 Minutes." CG reports:
With many other aspects of the operation available in the full interview below, Obama closed out his "60 Minutes" interview by saying, “As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn’t lose sleep over was the possibility of taking Bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.”
Particularly in view of the widespread perception that the terrorists are likely to retaliate against the United States in the near future, the president's proposal seems likely to garner near unanimous bipartisan support. The American People are frightened. They understand the need to examine the heads of those who question the government's narrative. That's because at the back of every compliant citizen's mind is a nagging question: What if those dissenters from mainstream opinion really are "with the terrorists"?
Mental Health Examinations
It is expected that the new mental health exam will only be mandatory for known civil libertarians and those who have "friended" such individuals in their online social networks. The examination will likely be developed by the United States Department of Fear (DoF) in cooperation with the National Security Agency (NSA), and the American Psychological Association (APA).
Political Re-Education Program (PREP)
Anyone who fails the mental health exam (and who's name is not on the president's list), may be required to attend a re-education camp. The Department of Fear is already soliciting bids from contractors who have expressed an interest in developing the infrastructure and curriculum for the Political Re-education Program (PREP).
Contacted by phone Sunday night, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III told DoF blog, "Our partners for PREP may include the Corrections Corporation of America, a consortium of for-profit universities, News Corp., and the SERE Training School at Fort Bragg."
Concerning funding, SecFear said, "The budget is as yet unknown, but like any high-profile national security initiative, PREP promises to be wildly profitable for its partners in the private sector (PREPPIES)."
SecFear mentioned that he had "just got off the phone with the CEO of a leading pharmaceutical company." SecFear was told that the company has "a new drug in the pipeline" that the CEO believes "could be re-branded to treat PREP participants."
On May 1, 2011 Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden. The United States Department of Fear urges Congress to establish a new medal of honor to mark this historic occasion, the Osama Bin Laden Medal of Honor (OBLMH). On behalf of the American People, Congress should award this medal to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, in recognition of their contributions toward developing and implementing policies that led to the death of the greatest terrorist of all time. We hope that the OBLMH will serve as a reminder to the America People that the fight against terrorism is bipartisan, that no one party or political leader deserves all the credit for the greatest triumph to date in the war.
"The tableau of the already iconic photo is powerful: the unfamiliar ... and the mystery arms and elbows of otherwise unseen men...."
- Washington Post, May 5, 2011
Just who were all the individuals watching the live raid on the Osama bin Laden compound? We've ID'd everyone in the room with President Barack Obama, you can match our country's national security leadership team to the numbers pictured.
Without the leadership and creative genius of the Cheney-Bush administration, without a president who is passionate about assassinating terror suspects, we wouldn't be celebrating today.
A report in today's Washington Post testifies that the killing of Osama bin Laden was a direct result of intelligence obtained under the previous administration from a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. This single fact is the ultimate vindication of various Cheney-Bush policies. WaPo:
...members of the Bush administration — as well as Obama officials — said the prior administration deserved credit, too.
Without information from detainees [DoF: often obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques] at the Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere [DoF: black sites, extraterritorial rendition program, etc.], U.S. officials would never have tracked the courier who led them to bin Laden’s compound, they said. Much of the intelligence and logistical groundwork [DoF: "illegal" NSA wiretapping, etc] was also laid during the Bush era...
DoF comment: This isn't reported in the Washington Post as mere speculation, or the assertion of one government official, but historical fact. It's the truth.
The Obama administration took office strongly opposed to aspects of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policy, vowing to prohibit torture during interrogation and to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. But under public and political pressure [DoF: the public remained terrified], the Obama team has backed off from shuttering Guantanamo...
Still, there was some zing in the comments of Bush officials who had been heavily criticized for adopting harsh interrogation techniques and establishing the Guantanamo prison.
Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense, said Monday that “most Republicans have been applauding what [Obama] did.” However, he added, the operation “also rested heavily on some of those controversial policies” instituted by Bush, such as setting up the Guantanamo camp. He spoke in a conference call organized by the American Enterprise Institute.
“All of this was made possible by the relentless, sustained pressure on al-Qaeda that the Bush administration initiated after 9/11and that the Obama administration has wisely chosen to continue,” former Defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote on Facebook.
Condi Rice explains that the capture of OBL was the result of the bipartisan work of two administrations. In fact, every top Cheney-Bush administration official interviewed or quoted by WaPo for the article appears to have come to the same conclusion: that the capture of Osama bin Laden vindicates the policies of Bush and Cheney (and by extension Guantanamo, the enhanced interrogation techniques, extradition, and the wiretapping program). Moreover, the newspaper informs us that various anonymous Obama administration officials agree with this assessment. Of course, the killing of OBL also vindicates the Obama administration's enthusiasm for extrajudicial assassination programs.
These new facts expose the treasonous nature of attacks against Bush and Cheney administration officials and President Obama for his defense of those policies and the targeted killing of terror suspects on an unprecedented scale. Now there can be little doubt that those who have criticized US terror policies have helped the terrorists. To what extent such assistance to the terrorists had been intentional is something the government will have to determine with regards to each outspoken citizen on a case by case basis (through NSA wiretapping, the monitoring of private email correspondence).
An essay entitled A National Strategic Narrative by Mr. Y is the talk of the town. Mr. Y of course, is a pseudonym for the person who penned the article.
The name is inspired by Mr. X, the author of a memorable 1946 State Department telegram. Mr. X was later revealed to be George F. Kennan, and his seminal telegram, later published in Foreign Affairs, was an early warning about the Soviet threat to the Free World. But any comparison between X and Y is strictly alphabetical. That's because, unlike Mr. X, Mr. Y's intention is not to warn America of a new foreign threat. In fact, it's unclear what Mr. Y's true motivations might be.
The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.
The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.
Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world.
CNN comments:
Take a look a the report and then, if you feel so moved, write your congressperson about it here. [DoF urges you to write your congressperson to complain about Mr Y. After all, your hard-earned tax dollars pay his salary.]
The United States Department of Fear has issued an Official Statement in response to the article:
It's one thing when the liberal media journalists or bloggers pen rants, but we expect better from people paid to serve us. We need to determine the identity of the authors of the article. They should be fired or possibly prosecuted for insubordination. In a world plagued by terrorism, drugs, and illegal migration, we simply cannot tolerate defense department employees undermining the defense establishment.
Rumor has it that the article may be part of a sophisticated U.S. intelligence operation. The idea is that when senior leaders give the appearance of tolerating radical thoughts, government employees who are not sufficiently committed to the agenda will speak out in favor of the message. In other word, perhaps it's part of a strategy to smoke the liberals out.
Others have suggested that the article may be someone's idea of a belated April Fool's joke. We think that's highly unlikely because the article concerns a topic most Americans know better than to joke about (certainly not around DoF, and DoD is not so different). To suggest that America should cut back on defense not 10 years after the worst attack on the Homeland in our history is not funny. To do so in view of the dangers we face and the various wars we are fighting (and at some risk of losing) abroad is not amusing. Rather, it's profoundly disrespectful towards the national security establishment.
