‘Occupy’ Protesters Listed As Domestic Terrorists

Well, that certainly didn't take long. From the U.K. -

Occupy London demonstrators have been listed as domestic terrorists by the City of London Police, who characterized them in the same context as Al-Qaeda, the Colombian FARC and Belarusian terrorists who bombed the Minsk underground.

“The City of London Police force was facing criticism last night after including the Occupy London demonstration in a letter warning businesses about potential terrorist threats,” reports the Independent.

The Real Effect
Last week we posited the following -

Now who wants to bet that Occupy Wall Street could be construed as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and"appear to be intended"  "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"?

Just a few short days later and the UK is boldly going where the US will go on a later date. Don't believe me? Just six short years ago this blog was documenting the seemingly absurd concept of setting up video surveillance of all streets. Today, just go to a major highway and drive around for a bit, you'll find them real quick. For whatever reason, the UK seems to be a few years ahead of us on many of these concepts.

Anyways, I digress.

In the same article I cited earlier, I also made the following observation -

It's quite easy to understand the argument that is being made here. Because the executive branch is executing the war, they alone possess the needed intelligence and relevant policies to determine how they need to deal with an individual. The little problem with that argument though is that all U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution. Remove that protection and you have removed the rule of law and subsequently rendered any executive decision supportable if given enough PR and time.

Enter Paul Craig Roberts -

The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees.

Exactly.

This leads into the main point of that article which is that you are now the target under these modifications of the law.

Put simply -> Open ended war via Authorization for Use of Military Force -> The executive is now empowered to prosecute the 'war' in any way it sees fit including the assassination of US citizens -> Any attempt to curtail this power is seen as a challenge on unconstitutional executive power as subsequently put down.

This is THE definition of a dictatorship. What is allowed is discussion on if these actions are necessary. What is not allowed is debate on if it exists in the first place.

This is not a left issue (since they hold the executive) nor is it a right issue (since they hold the House). This is a law issue. The Constitution was ratified in part to protect our rights and all branches of government receive their power from it. Failure to abide by it and attempts to circumvent it are unjust and illegal. Congress cannot override it any more then your local librarian can write her own warrant justifying her presence in your house.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Update:  Here comes Fox news with the same concept.

One of Fox's top radio shows is "Fox News & Commentary with Todd Starnes". Starnes has been a regular contributor on TV with FOX & Friends and Sean Hannity, but he makes his name on his radio show. Starnes fits the role of a Fox News employee, he's conservative, Christian and hates President Obama. Starnes has also decided to use the internet to voice his options through his twitter account. 

"Todd's #cnndebabte question "What should be done with the domestic terrorists who are occupying our cities and college campuses? #ows"