Sunday, June 27, 2010

Another legalistic Satanism-enabler

On Friday [9/11/2009 (9/11/11), fittingly], a panel of the federal Court of Appeals in Washington rendered its decision. Judge Laurence Silberman, perhaps the nation’s best known movement conservative judge, overruled a district court, announcing that the security contractors have immunity from suit. He wrote:

During wartime, where a private service contractor is integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority, a tort claim arising out of the contractor’s engagement in such activities shall be preempted.

Consequently, the plaintiffs could not seek compensation for having been tortured and abused by the contractors. What’s the matter with Silberman’s ruling? Start with the core of his conclusion, that the contractors are “integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority.” In fact, part of the problem with the contractors in Iraq is that they are not integrated into the authority of the Baghdad command.
[...]
In Blinded By the Right, David Brock, who describes Silberman as a “mentor,” details a long list of political schemes that Silberman embroiled himself in as part of an effort to undermine the administration of President Bill Clinton–all while he was sitting as a judge.
[...]
Silberman’s decision in this case may be legally baffling, but it is easily understood from a political perspective.
[...]
Republican legal architects talk about a culture of accountability, but what they are introducing is actually a culture in which corporate surrogates torture, rape, and abuse with no consequences whatsoever.


In other words, Silberman's decision is based on a glossed-over lie. Satanists often depend on carving out a special legal status for themselves (including by being allowed to operate in a war zone free of US command oversight, or by carefully defining torture out of existence to a large extent, as did Cheney's crew of lawyers in the DoJ), based on slick, deceptive arguments, so that if their SRA is exposed, they won't be held accountable in this world. (They believe that there either is no afterlife, or that they are above distinctions between good and evil, and thus that if they can rig the Earthly legal system in their favor, such as by taking it over, they're unaccountable.)

When Obama promised to put an end to such abuses, what he meant is that they would just be hidden better. As is the case with BP, his top concern is perception management. Whenever he commits a crime against mankind on behalf of the Queen, or is planning to commit one, he issues a statement to give the impression that he did precisely the opposite, or that he will do the opposite. (The same with BP: their "concern" for the little guy exists only in their TV commercials; in real life, they drive people to suicide and seek to prevent access to certain areas. By spending a lot on TV ads, they're also trying to buy some sympathy from the networks.) Obama's use of the term "financial reform" is one such case, as was his promise not to abandon the Haitian people. Those who select our "presidents" realized that they need better liars than Bush, and Obama is the result.