Follow us! Follow us!

10 reasons why the United States is alarming

From Reputable News Sources

10 reasons why the United States is alarming

Unread postby admin » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:12 am

10 reasons why the United States is alarming

Published 04/09/2013 07:23 AM

Babinaoz / agencies: the eleventh since the events of September / September, 2001 has consistently executive power in the United States authorities collected and paid to enact laws to permit it to act as it deems appropriate in order to address the "threat of terrorism". In the view of many writers and commentators and American citizens that these practices violate the U.S. Constitution and the United States turned into a physical authoritarian system. In the following articleon this subject written by Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, and display the Ten Reasons said it found that the United States is no longer the "land of the free" as you like to call themselves. The article published in "Anformishn Clering House", which was:
all the authority of national security collected by the United States government had sparked controversy when obtained by legislation. In most cases, the authorities put this debate in isolation. But they are not applied in isolation, but rather constitute an integrated system becomes possible with it, at least in part, as governance in our country authoritarian.
has long declared the Americans to the whole world that our country is a symbol of freedom, and they assert that countries such as Cuba and China is not free at all. But objectively, we can only be half right. It is true that these countries lack the freedoms of an individual such basic principle trial in accordance with due process of law, which established beyond any reasonable limitation for "freedom," but that the United States collects now with such systems common denominators much more than what may one wants to acknowledge it.
these countries have also claims constitutions guarantee freedoms and rights. However, governments have a wide range of appreciation and discretion, which allows them to evade compliance with these rights, while not available to citizens ways real objection. This particular problem has become now exist in our country because of the new legislation.
, and the list of authorities collected by the U.S. government since the attacks September / September 2001, but put us in the group of countries of concern.
1 - The assassination of U.S. citizens:
he claimed President Barack Obama, as he did before President George W. Bush, he is authorized to issue an order to kill any citizen considered a terrorist or an instigator of terrorism. In the past year, approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and another citizen on the basis of this claim, and in July last administration officials confirmed this power, and declared that the President is authorized to order the assassination of any citizen he considers allied with terrorists. (It should be noted that countries such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria - are exposed to U.S. criticism routinely they kill extrajudicial people described by the enemies of the state).
2 - detention indefinitely:
under a law signed by the President in July, the U.S. military authorized to arrest people suspected of involvement in terrorism and the president also has the authority to arrest citizens accused of terrorism indefinitely. While claims administration that this provision did not only codify existing rule already, but experts challenging widely in the validity of this opinion, however, have resorted management to the federal courts to overrule such objections to the authorities and the government continues to claim that it has the right to deprive citizens of legal protections based solely on appreciation and Astnsabha to. (It should be noted that China has adopted a newly passed legislation sets limits narrower for the arrest of its citizens, while the United States is often criticized countries such as Cambodia due to exercise "arrest a long-term" right of citizens).
3 - the administration of justice arbitrarily:
President became decide now whether someone will be tried in federal civil courts or before a military court., this system was a mockery across the world for free from the basic protections of the assets of the trials. Bush claimed in 2001 that he has this power, then Obama continued the practice. (It should be noted that countries such as China were to condemn the U.S. because it has established a judicial system that militarily separate in order to prosecute accused appointees, including civilians).
4 - searches without warrants:
president can now order the conduct surveillance without warrants, including the possibility of forcing companies and organizations to deliver information regarding the finances of citizens, their contacts and their partnerships. Bush has received this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, while Obama in 2011 extended this power work, including the inspection of everything from business documents to library records. The government may also use "orders pretext of national security" in order to request, without giving reasons, companies and institutions deliver information on citizens - and ordering it not to see the party concerned on the matter. (It should be noted that the United States criticizes countries, such as Pakistan, have laws that authorize governments to carry out surveillance on a large scale based solely on appreciation and Astnsabha).
5 - secret evidence:
the government is now used on a regular basis of secret evidence to arrest individuals, also used secret evidence in Federal courts and the military which also imposes Re lawsuits filed against it, by providing a note saying that these suits will make the government reveal classified information secret, what harm national security, and this claim was used by the U.S. government to meet the claims of multiple lifting individuals and institutions, has been accepted by the judges, federal in most cases without debate. Even legal opinions, which were used as a basis for government actions during the Bush and Obama administrations, classified secret. This allows the government to invoke confidentiality of legal arguments to support secret proceedings based on secret evidence. Furthermore
, some of the lawsuits against the government does not reach never to court.
6 - war crimes:
during the reign of the Bush administration, din world demands to prosecute those responsible for subjecting suspected of involvement in terrorism technology waterboarding, but the Obama administration announced in 2009 that it would not allow open investigations with the staff of the Central Intelligence Agency, "CIA" or referring them to trial as a result of this work. And a violation of U.S. obligations under international treaties, and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal contained in international law. When moved courts in countries such as Spain to investigate with officials in the Bush administration on war crimes, took the Obama administration has put pressure on foreign officials in order to stop the course of these proceedings, despite the fact that the United States has claimed for itself a long time ago Authority itself in order to prosecute war criminals suspected accused war crimes in other countries. (Rejected many countries demands to open investigations with officials where accused of torture and war crimes., And some countries, such as Serbia and Chile, lint opposition and complied with international law., But other countries refused to conduct independent investigations, such as Iran, Syria and China.
(7) secret court:
government has been resorting more and more to the Court of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, which has expanded the scope of the warrants confidential issued to include individuals is that they are helping or يتواطأون with governments or foreign organizations hostile. and in 2011 extended Obama's work to these authorities, which include the inspection of secret members are not members of the terrorist group determinable. announced the administration should have the right to ignore the restrictions imposed by Congress on the operations of such control. (It should be noted that Pakistan has delegated the military and intelligence authorities do not control them to carry out surveillance of national security).
(8) immunity from review Judiciary:
Like the Bush administration, prompted the Obama administration successfully to ensure immunity for companies that help the government monitor citizens without warrants, which hampered the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, claimed that China itself sweeping powers inside and outside the borders of both, which is are regularly cases filed against private companies.)
(9) permanent observer to the citizens:
defended the Obama administration successfully defended its claim that it has the authority to use the devices Global Positioning System to monitor every movement of the citizens targeted surveillance, without judicial review or get any court order. (there are many countries have established systems huge to monitor their people).
(10) deliver exceptional:
the government can now move citizens and non-citizens alike to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition. This system is exposed to conviction on a global scale and wide for being used other countries in order to subdue suspects tortured. says the Obama administration did not continue this practice dating back to the days of the Bush administration, but insists that it has really not restricted in issuing orders transfer of such individuals, including the U.S., to other countries.
these laws New coincided with an infusion of money in a security system bulked at both state and federal mandates, including the monument more cameras to monitor people, employing tens of thousands in security functions, and expand the huge bureaucracy competent to hunt down terrorists.
and some politicians do not care about this, and say that the expansion of the powers of government is not only a response to the circumstances that we face at this time. Thus, we heard Senator Lindsey Graham says during an interview last spring, without being challenged by one: "Freedom of speech is a great idea, but now we are fighting a war." Of course, terrorism will not "give up" and never stop this "war."
There are other politicians justify what is going on, and say that the core issue is the only way in which exercise these powers extended. has adopted the Liberals this position, and refrained from condemning Obama as condemned Bush., for example, stressed Senator Carl Levin on that Congress is not in connection with any decision on detention indefinitely, said: "This is a decision we leave where it should be: in the hands of the executive branch."
The authoritarian state determines not only the state used authorities authoritarian, but also the state may use these authorities. If he can head to Asbak your freedom or your life on the basis of his powers, all rights are no longer little more than a gift optional remain subject to the will of the executive branch.
've lived the authors of our Constitution under authoritarian rule and understood this danger better of us. James Madison for example, launched the famous warning by saying that we need a system that does not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: "If human beings angels, there would be no need for any government."
For his part, Benjamin Franklin spoke in a more direct manner. In, 1787 انبرت him a woman named Ms. Powell, following the signing of the Constitution, and I asked him: "Well dear Dr: What نلناه: Republic or ownership?." His answer was very cold after the thing, when he said: "The Republic Madam, if you can maintain it."
in the wake of attacks September / September , our own kind of government itself, which fears it framers of the Constitution: government that is not controlled by the powers sweeping depending on the hope that you use these powers wisely.
and item detention indefinitely in the National Defense Authorization Act looked into many spectrums of civil society as a betrayal by Obama . While the president had promised to veto-wielding against this item, but Senator Levin, who was one of the sponsors of the law, it was revealed during a debate in the Senate that the White House is the one who wanted to actually not exclude any citizens of the item detention indefinitely.
deception practiced by politicians is nothing new for Americans., and the real question is whether we lie to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.
If its not on Iraqi Dinar Chat...It's probably crap!
User avatar
Site Owner
Site Owner
Posts: 23542
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:26 am

Return to Iraqi Politics & Economy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing and 49 guests