Barron confirmation gameplay analysis

Posted: May 24, 2014 in "Real" Monsters, "Shock Doctrine"
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This might seem silly, but if you have a legal satire hat on I want you to think of an ESPN post game analysis, replays. Let’s recap the ugly plays between rival teams CONTROLLED OPPOSITION and CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCATES.

David Barron, Harvard guy, submitted an executive legal memo to execute an American citizen abroad using presumed language from the NDAA (2011). David Barron is now being confirmed to be one seat away from the US Supreme Court on 53 Democratic votes from the US Senate floor. This appears to be Obama’s reward for issuing “enforceable” unconstitutional legal precedent against an American’s 6th amendment.  If the SCOTUS tolerates this, it would further entrench expanded legal interpretative powers to the Executive Branch in the federal justice system. It’s compromising the separation of powers between an impartial SCOTUS and the Executive branch.

SO,  the US bill of Rights and the US Constitution states if you are suspected to be guilty of a crime, you should be apprehended, prosecuted to stand trial by jury. Your crimes are articulated by charges and you are given a lawyer to argue your case.  A judge finalizes the sentence based on your legal guilt or innocence based on the Sixth Amendment (a.k.a. due process).

Awlaki was in Yemen. The Yemeni government allows US criminals to be apprehended by local or US authorities to be extradited (or brought back to the US from abroad) to stand trial in a court of law.  They had the intelligence to know where he was to apprehend him.  They had the legal upper hand to extradite him, but they simply executed him and his son without due process. Now, lets review the process of what just happened by watching a series of RT America coverage videos.

  • This first video sets up the plays and the players at odds with Barron’s actions prior to the confirmation hearing.  []
  • Then watch the post vote coverage: []

Here’s what I concluded:

The Awlaki’s guilt was reported as ‘guilty’ by a foreign and national news sources. They were American citizens suspected of a crime and executed by writ of Executive Order. There was no trial to arbit guilt or innocence.  In proper reporting, according the RTNDA, you at least TRY to use fact correct terms like “alleged criminal” or “suspect”.  These are technically responsible coverage terms; which distinguish editorializing from fact based reports.  A news organization DOES NOT determine who is guilty or not guilty without court case coverage.  So this practice is not ethical journalism. The post vote opener would be spin, technically.

Senator Tom Udall and Ron Wyden are both progressive Democrats. They dropped the ball at the 10 yard line when they had the room to go to the end zone.  They pulled a Peyton Manning safety play the minute they put in for the FOIA memo request order, throwing the 6th Amendment game.  Once they got the memo release, they cued to “drop-the-ball”. The Democrats voted as a block on this one.  They had vote support from NeoCons and pro-bureaucracy conservative Republicans.

IF Udall and Wyden voted against normalizing the imperial presidential precedent in favor of due process, Barron would not be confirmed.  Barron was the guy who literally wrote away 2 Americans 6th amendment rights by CONTRIVED Executive legal privilege.   I very sincerely doubt that is legal. Yet in a tyranny, everyone gives the bully a pass.   The Executive branch is playing a political maneuvering game in law & the courts to annul the US Constitution and convert this government to a true tyranny.  The SCOTUS is, supposedly, an impartial branch of government who may check the Executive Branch for exceeding the separation of powers.

At the end the of the day, the US Presidency may not legally write away your Constitutional rights. What just happened this week was the President sought to further institutionalize a move away from Constitutional government and implant a controlled chess piece in the court system that would defer to Executive Branch preference.  The SCOTUS has the means to shoot down this nominee in the final analysis and NOT dilute the amendment that gives them the reason for being (6th Amendment).

Let’s see if they defer to a continuance of Executive mangling of the courts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s