Michel Chossudovsky: 2012 - La inauguración del estado policial en EEUU

Con un mínimo debate en los medios de comunicación, en un momento en que los estadounidenses celebraban el Año Nuevo, la "Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional" (National Defense Authorization Act) HR 1540 fue firmada por el presidente Barack Obama, el 31 de diciembre en Hawai.

Por Michel Chossudovsky | Global Research | Enero 1, 2012 | Traducido para AlbaTV: J. Vidal Rivero

Según la "declaración firmada" de Obama, la amenaza de Al Qaeda a la Seguridad de la Patria constituye una justificación para derogar los derechos y libertades fundamentales, de un plumazo.
La polémica declaración firmada (ver transcripción en el link) es una cortina de humo. Obama dice que no está de acuerdo con la NDAA pero lo convierte en ley.
"[Tengo] serias reservas con algunas disposiciones que regulan la detención, interrogatorio y enjuiciamiento de presuntos terroristas".
Obama implementa el "Estado Policíaco de EE.UU.", mientras reconoce que algunas disposiciones de la NDAA son inaceptables. Si tal es el caso, podría haber vetado la NDAA (HR 1540) o bien devolverla al Congreso con sus objeciones.
La "Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional" (HR 1540) es el "regalo" de Año Nuevo de Obama para el pueblo estadounidense.
Él justifica la firma de la NDAA como un medio para combatir el terrorismo, como parte de una agenda "contra el terrorismo". Pero en el fondo, cualquier estadounidense opuesto a las políticas del gobierno de EE.UU. puede - según las disposiciones de la NDAA - ser etiquetado como "sospechoso de terrorismo" y arrestado bajo detención militar.

"Además, quiero aclarar que mi administración no autorizará la detención militar indefinida sin juicio a ciudadanos estadounidenses. De hecho, creo que al hacerlo se rompería con nuestras más importantes tradiciones y valores como nación. Mi administración interpretará el artículo 1021 de manera que se asegure que cualquier detención cumpla con la Constitución, las leyes de guerra, y todos las demás leyes aplicables."

Barack Obama es abogado (uno graduado de la Escuela de Leyes de Harvard). Él sabe muy bien que la firma de esta declaración – en donde cacarea su compromiso con la democracia - es puramente estética. No tiene fuerza de ley.
¿Su administración "no autorizará" qué? ¿La implementación de una ley firmada por el presidente de EE.UU?
El artículo 1021 es muy claro. El Ejecutivo no puede negarse a aplicarla. La firma de la declaración de ninguna manera invalida o modifica la firma efectiva por el Presidente Obama de la NDAA (HR 1540). No tiene ninguna incidencia en la implementación / ejecución de la ley.
   
“Dictadura Democrática” en EE.UU.
La "Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional" (HR 1540) deroga la Constitución de los EE.UU. Mientras que la fachada de democracia prevalezca, con apoyo de los medios de propaganda, la república estadounidense estará fracturada. La tendencia es hacia el establecimiento de un Estado totalitario, un gobierno militar vestido con traje de civil.
La aprobación de la NDAA está íntimamente relacionada con la agenda mundial militar de Washington. La búsqueda de la hegemonía militar de todo el mundo requiere también la "militarización de la Patria", es decir, la desaparición de la república estadounidense.
En sustancia, la firma de la declaración tiene la intención de engañar a los estadounidenses y ofrecer una "cara democrática" del Presidente, así como lo tuvo el despliegue post-911 del aparato militar del Estado Policial.
Las "más importantes tradiciones y valores" de la Carta de Derechos y la Constitución de los EE.UU. han sido derogadas de hecho, efectivo el día de Año Nuevo, 1 de enero de 2012.
La NDAA autoriza la detención militar arbitraria e indefinida de los ciudadanos estadounidenses.
  
Las Lecciones de la Historia
La firma de la NDAA, esta víspera de Fin de Año 31 de diciembre 2011, será recordado como un hito en la historia de Estados Unidos.
Si vamos a poner esto en un contexto histórico-comparativo, las disposiciones pertinentes de la NDAA HR 1540 son, en muchos aspectos, comparables a las contenidas en el "Decreto del Presidente del Reich para la Protección del Pueblo y el Estado", comúnmente conocido como el "Reichstag Fire Decree" (Reichstagsbrandverordnung), promulgada en Alemania bajo la República de Weimar el 27 de febrero de 1933 por el presidente (el mariscal de campo) Paul von Hindenburg.
Implementado en la estela inmediata del incendio del Reichstag (que sirvió como pretexto), este decreto de Febrero de 1933 se utilizó para revocar las libertades civiles incluyendo el derecho de Habeas Corpus.
El artículo 1 de febrero de 1933 "Decreto del Presidente del Reich para la Protección del Pueblo y el Estado", suspendió las libertades civiles con el pretexto de "proteger" la democracia: "Por lo tanto, las restricciones a la libertad personal, a la libre expresión de opinión, incluyendo la libertad de prensa, sobre el derecho de asociación y reunión, y violaciónes de la privacidad de las comunicaciones postales, telegráficas y las comunicaciones telefónicas, ordenes de búsquedas en casas, las órdenes de decomiso, así como las restricciones sobre los derechos de propiedad están permitidas más allá de los límites legales hasta que se disponga lo contrario."(Art. 1, énfasis añadido)
La democracia constitucional fue anulada en Alemania a través de la firma de un decreto presidencial.
El Decreto del Incendio del Reichstag fue seguido en marzo de 1933 por "La Ley de Habilitación" (Ermächtigungsgesetz) lo que permitió (o activó) el gobierno nazi del canciller Adolfo Hitler, quien invoco poderes dictatoriales de facto. Estos dos decretos permitieron al régimen nazi introducir una legislación que estaba en contradicción abierta con la Constitución de Weimar de 1919.
Al año siguiente, tras la muerte del presidente Hindenburg en 1934, Hitler "declaró la oficina del presidente vacante" y asumió el cargo como Führer, la función combinada de canciller y jefe de Estado.
  
El regalo de Año Nuevo de Obama al pueblo Estadounidense
Decir que el 01 de enero de 2012 es "un día triste para Estados Unidos" es un eufemismo.
La firma de la NDAA (HR 1540) es equivalente a la militarización de la aplicación de la ley, la derogación de la Ley de Posse Comitatus y la inauguración en 2012 de la Policía del Estado de EE.UU.
Al igual que en la Alemania de Weimar, los derechos y libertades fundamentales son derogados, con el pretexto de que la democracia está amenazada y debe ser protegida.
La NDAA es el "regalo de Año Nuevo de Obama" para el pueblo estadounidence. .

Nota: Este articulo incluye como anexo la firma de la declaración de Barack Obama a la ley H.R. 1540, el 31 de Diciembre de 2011. Dejo al lector la tarea de leer y traducir esta declaración para que sea de dominio público la “justificación” a la criminalización de la protesta.




ANEXO:

Transcript of Signing Statement by President Barack Obama on H.R. 1540, December 31,  2011 

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA,

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 31, 2011