Why we need a new Bill of Rights

Why we need a new Bill of Rights

By Dark Politricks

A recent satirical survey carried out by Mark Dice showed that people were willing to sign a petition banning Christian symbols, Christmas lights, bumper stickers and other forms of expression covered by the 1st Amendment. His bigger coup was showing up the American people for signing another petition banning the first amendment altogether.

It seems no matter what crazy things Mark says to the signers they willingly agree to remove their own freedom. He uses Obama, racism, the Tea Party and even the New World Order to persuade people to sign, not that they need much persuading.

Even when he thanks people for "helping to repeal free speech" or "repeal the first amendment" from the USA they happily nod, agree and then sign on the dotted line.


The people signing these petitions should obviously be ashamed of themselves but it goes to show the indoctrination that has been achieved by politicians and the media.

Job well done it seems! These people are almost too eager to sign their freedoms away.

Here in the UK we don't have a written constitution and our bill of rights (1689) which was inspiration for the USA is more concerned with limiting the power of the Crown, ensuring that our parliament is regularly elected and that the people we elect to it have the right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the Crown.

Remember that this was one of the first documents of its kind in the modern world so it's nowhere near perfect and it followed the English civil war in which we deposed and killed our monarch and then replaced him with a quasi-religious military family dictatorship or what historians call a "Protectorate".

This was a bit like North Korea today along with a puritanical religious nature and it involved a dictatorial dynasty i.e Oliver Cromwell and then his 3rd son Richard. The Cromwells, along with the military and their "Godly Governors" ruled the country until the monarchy was restored later in the century.

However our bill of rights, the preceeding Magna Carta, the writ of habeas corpus and it's codified version in law the Habeas Corpus Act plus the writings of many enlightened English philosophers of the time such as John Locke and Thomas Paine, helped inspire and create the US Bill of Rights.

However, whilst this bill is something to be proud of, and US school children are taught from an early age that the Constitution is the primary law of the land and no other law can supersede it, it seems nowadays that either the US Government doesn't preach what it teaches in its public schools or just believes, as George W Bush famously did, that it's just a piece of paper.

Since 9.11, laws such as the PATRIOT ACT have removed many rights enshrined in the constitution and many local courts in the USA have actually found it and the FISA court to be in blatant violation of the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explains about the recent NSA Prism revelations that the US/UK governments are conducting massive surveillance on millions of people without a warrant, the mass spying of Americans, whilst allowed by the PATRIOT ACT breaches the constitution which trumps it in law, or is supposed to!


With Obama now being able to act like a king with the NDAA (The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013) behind him, and the country still be ruled under emergency laws enacted after 9.11, he is now able to do such things as:

-allow for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." (Section 1021)

-to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who "substantially supports" Al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces" (Section 1031)

-mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system (section 1032)

Therefore, he can now, if he so wished, declare you a terrorist or "domestic extremist" by using NSA hovered up and illegally obtained data, and then if he so wished either detain you without due process indefinitely, or if you lived abroad, send a drone to kill you and your family in the manner he dispatched Anwar al Awlaki and his son in Yemen.

The bill also basically dispenses with Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says that nobody can be punished for treason without heightened due process requirements being met. Lets wait and see what happens to Edward Snowden. Is he a traitor for exposing massive and illegal spying by the NSA or a traitor for letting the people know what the Government is doing to them?

Therefore with free speech under attack due to massive state surveillance and unwarranted search and seizure of property such as any electronical private effects e.g emails, direct message tweets or text messages. And as Mark Dice has shown, a populace all too willing to just "sign a petition" abolishing their rights without second thought I am asking you today what you think our rights should be in this modern-day and age.

Do we need extra protections from government surveillance?

Is the requirement for a well maintained militia and the bearing of arms still needed when the US military is the largest on earth and a few handguns wouldn't last long against the local police force let alone the US military - not that you can tell the two apart lately.

What about limits on free speech? Should you have the right to be offended or can I be racist, sexist, anti-religious and homophobic to you all without fear of punishment?

Taking a well-known section of the European Convention of Human Rights - Article 3, which prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Do Americans need to incorporate this into a bill after their water boarding, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo "enhanced interrogation" escapades?

What about Article 11 that supposedly protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions.

This seems to be trumped by local laws such as "free speech zones" in the USA or the much hated English Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which banned people assembling to "rave" i.e party.

This law also and allowed for courts to make certain inferences if a defendant remained silent in custody or for the police to take intimate body samples on arrest and keep them whether or not the accused is ever convicted in court - an act that has been found to violate European law multiple times.

It seems that in this modern day and age people on all sides of the Atlantic need a Bill of Rights that protects them from their own government. What I'd like to know is which rights are most important to you.

Some of these points cross over and in a new bill they would be sectioned together. Therefore you may want to vote for more than one but I want to know the right that you feel is most important to you in your daily life.

For example is your right to speak freely without fear of being bugged and arrested more important than a theoretical chance that you might overthrow your government with your firearms?

If something important is missing just add it in the other section and feel free to use the comment section to expand on your points if you do.




View the original article "A New Bill of Rights" at www.darkpolitricks.com.

This new rebel army massacre won't stop the USA/UK's support for the Free Syrian Army

By Dark Politricks

A new video released by Syrian rebels fighting President Assad in Syria apparently showing them shooting captured troops loyal to President Assad has not been mentioned in the western media but the western TV stations love to parrot the line whenever the shoe is on the other foot.

You can find some of the video on the Guardian one of the few papers that has some modicum of balance even though it is definitely not independent in any way it is mostly anti-war in its articles. The text above the video goes:

"Amateur footage purports to show pro-Assad militia captured by rebels, who are seen collecting their dead as fierce clashes continue in Aleppo. Government forces continue to shell Syria's largest city, including the rebel stronghold of Salaheddin. The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, say time is running out for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad"

Not exactly singing the same sort of tune as the "town about to be massacred" and "Assad troops massacre civilians and rebels" etc that has been covering the media over the weeks including by the same Guardian paper trying to give some form of balance however small to both sides of this civil war in Syria.

You can find more balanced views (in that I mean a view opposing the western one so that you can make your own mind up) on rt.com or Russia Today.

Yes the same international TV station that is attacked by Hillary Clinton, Western news pundits and others for its "pro-Kremlin" views, a KGB front and so on. The video they show is below:



The article that goes with it can be found here: War Crime? Syrian rebels execute captured policeman on tape.

This article has more than a slightly different slant on matters than the Guardian one which goes to show how one journalist's writing can turn A into B and people who only read from one news source will undoubtedly get a skewed outlook on matters.

Now I would never advise anyone to get their news only from one source but you should never, never just believe what you are told by the Western media who are mostly owned and controlled by the same few rich families and organisations.

Editorial control they call it, a reason given by Julian Assange when he fell out with the Guardian when they refused to show certain documents, videos from his #cablegate release.

The same one that might see him end up in an orange jumpsuit in the USA.

Why the Swedish police cannot just interview him over the phone or in the Ecuadorian embassy I don't know but he hasn't even been charged with a crime.

Supposedly they only want to talk to him about about certain crimes that can only be described as "unusual" and involve two girls who were WikiLeak "fans" or "benefactors" who obviously had a crush on him having sex with him on consecutive nights.

The two girls found out about each other and as some may say - "Hell has no fury like a woman  scorned" they both went to the police and accused Julian of having sex with him without wearing a condom!

Now I don't know how this is a crime as they obviously let him do it otherwise it would be rape or sexual assault but nonetheless the Swedes want him in their country for interviewing.

At the moment he is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London waiting for the Ecuadorian's to make their mind up about asylum whilst I guess the Americans threaten that country with everything under the sun but it all seems like madness to me.

If you could be arrested and locked up for having sex without a condom then how many men out there would be in prison right now?

Anyway back to the point - get your news from opposing points of view and then make your own mind up. Do not believe everything your told whatever channel it comes from.

Russia Today may be the spawn of the KGB and Kremlin propaganda in some peoples eyes but it most definitely gives a voice to those people the western media overlook.

However remember this is the channel that gave Julian Assange his own "The World Tomorrow" interview show to talk to people the western news channels wouldn't dare talk to.

If I want news or details of political crimes and Russian mafia like governance then I wouldn't expect Russia Today to give it to me.

In the same way I don't expect my countries own news channels to attack their government and the crush of our civil rights and the rising police state in the same way.

However Russia Today allows rebels, dissidents, people considered "unpatriotic" and all the other BS names FOX and other channels throw about in the USA to appear on their channels frequently.

Everybody from members of Anonymous, WikiLeaks to Alex Jones, Glenn Greenwald and Norman Finkelstein at the very least.

People the western shows stay away from like a turd on a stick.

So when you hear about Assad and the next town about to be massacred just remember that war crimes are being committed and admitted by the UN Human Rights council by both sides in this civil war.

Only last week the Free Syrian Army committed massive attacks in the capital that killed numerous civilians as well as the Syrian Defence Minister. UN human rights chief Navi Pillay said last week:

"Pillay cited unconfirmed reports of atrocities including executions and shooting of civilians by snipers during recent fighting in the Syrian capital Damascus. Her office had also been receiving an increasing number of reports of opposition fighters torturing or executing prisoners, and reports that unarmed prisoners had been killed in the central prisons of Aleppo and Homs during uprisings in the past week, in violation of international law. "

This is a civil war and should be left as such without all the arming and funding by Saudia Arabia and Qatar with help from US/UK/French war mongerers who don't seem to learn anything.

Especially that if you put religious fanatics into power including your supposed "mortal enemy" you end up with Libya.

A country now run by ex LIFG / al-Qaeda members, rebel armies controlling towns and summary executions of people with links to Gadaffi or black skin.

Just remember what happened when the CIA helped create al-Qaeda in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Blowback and bombings and then 9.11.

Syria and Libya are a lot closer to home than Afghanistan and before "our help" their leaders, as crazy and despotic as they may seem to us, they were a hell of a lot nicer than our "ally" Saudi Arabia. A medieval country run under ancient barbaric laws with no respect for human rights and women.

If foreign policy was logical this would have been the target of any post-9.11 attack due to the number of hijackers that were Saudi Arabian and all the funding of terror groups it does regularly - but then they supply us oil and Bush's family have a "close" relationship with the House of Saud.

But when has western foreign policy ever been logical and when does the enemy of our enemy stay our enemy and not our friend?