Blinken owes a hat-tip to his fellow "National Security Ideology" predecessor, in my opinion!
Before McCain and Graham as principal promoters succeeded in passing a more open and higher level of “martial law,” at the end of 2011 as the 2012 NDAA, the Bush administration constructively declared martial law in 2001 when the OLC “legal” opinion authorizing the use of military force Within the United States (emphasis in original) was put into effect by the DOD subagency, the NSA, with the vast surveillance of US citizens “Within the United States.” Effectively, therefore, “martial law.: https://irp.fas.org/agency/doj/olc/milforce.pdf
Obama affirmed that, though threatening to veto it, with the almost 100% Republican pushed (I read the Senate transcript) provision of the 2012 NDAA providing for military detention of such "subversives,” as Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and journalist Christ Hedges for their “expressive activities.” Trump expressed approval of that provision as a ratification and it remains in effect. And Trump’s supporters and nominees for DOD positions, and Tom Cotton, routinely called for a “Declaration of Martial Law,” whether “on the border” (a gigantic portion of the US as it extends 200 miles into the US), all around the perimeter, or in “major cities.”
Julian Assange and Daniel Hale both are current victims of that as the “Espionage Act” was deliberately modeled after US martial law in the Philippine-American War which William Howard Taft (R) presided over. And under his administration, the direct predecessor of the 1917 Espionage Act, the 1911 Defense Secrets Act was passed, as had been enforced as martial law, along with many other despotic measures in the Philippine-American War (a “war of pacification” against the subjugated Filipinos), which were put into effect during WW I, with virtually the full support of both parties. After TR and the Republicans were finally successful with their efforts from 1914 on to get the US into the War.
So what kind of States adopt martial law, regardless of degree, or “decree,” as their “Legal system?"
From “The Dual State, Chap. 1, The Prerogative State, opening with: “Martial law provides the constitution of the Third Reich.”
. . .
"American law also emphasizes the proposition that the activity of the state under conditions of martial law is not legal activity in the proper sense, as Field said in ex parte Milligan:
'People imagine, when they hear the _expression_ ‘martial law’, that there is a system of law known by that name, which can upon occasion be substituted for the ordinary system; and there is a prevalent notion that under certain circumstances a military commander may, by issuing a proclamation, displace one system, the civil law, and substitute another, the martial…. Let us call the thing by its right name; it is not martial law, but martial rule.'
"In recognizing that a state of permanent martial rule obtains in Germany today, it must also be appreciated that the opposite of the legal order of the rule of law is the lawlessness and arbitrariness of the Prerogative State. Martial law, according to Carl Schmitt, ‘is characterized by its practically unlimited authority, i.e., the suspension of the entire hitherto prevailing legal order. It is characterized by the fact that the state continues to exist while the legal order is inoperative.” End Quote.
I have read all the major Conservative “legal theorists,” including “Original Intentions,” with a few citations to Kendall as “authority,” and they all are in agreement with, if not the inspiration for, Yoram Hazony’s fascist oriented “National Conservative” political theory. Including legal theory, insisting we must turn back to English Common Law, the Old Testament, and the Torah, for divinely inspired law. And away from the Enlightenment, with it discredited in these Conservative’s eyes (and theory) for inspiring the idea of “rights,” which all of the aforementioned vigorously opposed.
Coming from my work on the subversion of the Constitution by the USG with Guantanamo and all things related to that, I can’t stand idly by while “Conservatives” subvert that Constitution even more, as Blinken is as an “honorary Conservative" with his adoption of the National Security Ideology as developed by CIA officers at National Review in the 1950s, and called “Conservatism.” Read The Conservative Affirmation in America” to see how vigorously the Constitution was opposed by such people, particularly the “right” to "free speech" and “thought,” let alone a “free press.” And though it took a while, Julian Assange and Daniel Hale are their latest victims, following Dan Ellsberg, whom they all must have despised with a particular vehemence, given what they wrote. It’s sad to see the “Committee for the Republic” opening itself up to such “theorists.”
Someone here asked what does it matter if Meloni is Italy’s PM? Probably not much, given how rapidly Europe is destroying itself, with US assistance. But it can be assumed she will do all she can to incorporate “National Conservative” legal ideology (Hazony’s) into law, as a “National Conservative constitutional coup d’état,” which, assuming we’ve seen the last of the sort of regime which took power in 1933 as described by Ernst Fraenkel, at bottom, as to its end results, nevertheless, it was “fascist” from the beginning, even while tourists, like Rod Dreher in Hungary today, commented on how “normal it looks.” Being too ignorant to see the degradation of the Rule of Law taking place in the law courts and law schools, and the “norms” of a Normative State, in Fraenkel’s words, destroyed even more, as the Federalist Society has been so successful at today, and as what Fraenkel saw it in its more advanced stage.
For further “context,” see beneath this article.
Let’s Be Fascists All the Way - Opinion - Haaretz.comIn 1919, a group of revolutionary youths gathered in a fashionable European city to draft a manifesto for the reestablishment of their homeland, which, like many other countries, came out of World War I different than how it had entered. The manifesto included several impressive declarations, many of which a lot of us still dream about and would sign onto today; one can only imagine how revolutionary they sounded over a 100 years ago. Among their demands: An unusual capital tax – the authors demanded a special tax on capital, to be calculated progressively, to justly redistribute wealth in society. Nationalization of religious institutions’ assets – and seizure of all goods belonging to religious communities and abolition of the clergy’s economic privileges “which impose a tremendous burden on society and bestow privilege on the few;” Reexamination of the supply contracts for the security establishment, and nationalization of 85 percent of the war profits. Enshrining in law social security for the disabled and elderly, and lowering the retirement age to 55 (life expectancy in the country averaged under 60 years then). In addition, they demanded the establishment of national councils with legislative powers, to be based on professionals in the fields of labor, healthcare, communications and transportation; Establishment of a national assembly for three years, to be tasked with writing a national constitution and involving unions in discussions that related to their occupations. The manifesto included some points we take for granted today, but were novel back then: Universal suffrage for anyone over 18, even women; a minimum wage; limiting the workday to eight hours. This was the founding document of the National Fascist Party, written in Milan by a group headed by Benito Mussolini, who three years later, precisely 100 years ago, was appointed prime minister of Italy. This week his successor, Giorgia Meloni of the Brothers of Italy party, won slightly more than a quarter of the vote, and, as the leader of the largest party, is expected to helm the government. That goal is still a long way off – coalition-building in Italy is almost as complex as in Israel, with political instability to match – but even now supporters of totalitarian regimes from Europe, the Middle East and Miami, Florida have hailed her victory. Many in Israel voice support for fascism. Most dare not call it by name – we’re lucky that some of them still have some shame left – but they choose from it whatever integral parts serve them: a cult of personality around the leader, intolerance of minorities, extreme loyalty to the state as an ideal in and of itself rather than an amalgam of mechanisms. This wouldn’t be the first time that people cherry-pick certain elements from an ideology, rather than adopting all of it or understanding its foundations. Fascism in Italy was born as a revolutionary movement, seeking to undermine the old monarchist order in the aftermath of World War I on one hand, and the Bolshevik revolution on the other, which sought to redistribute the wealth of the capitalists and institute enlightened social reforms. Revolution is the very heart of original fascism, to the point where historians such as Shlomo Sand take pains to distinguish it from regimes and rulers such as Francisco Franco in Spain, who were avowed conservatives, lacking the revolutionary spark necessary to quintessential fascism. In light of the rise of Meloni in Italy, the continued entrenchment of Viktor Orban in Hungary, Trumpism in America and extremism here at home, let us be loyal to the true origins of fascism. It would be interesting to see if its adherents still found it appealing.
|