The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
Ret. Staff Colonel under Sec. Colin Powell Says Obama White House Insisted that Treasonous McCain/Levin Amendment Be Included with S-1867
From Ken Adachi, Editor
December 12, 2011
Ret. Staff Colonel under Sec. Colin Powell Says Obama White House Insisted that Treasonous McCain/Levin Amendment Be Included with S-1867 Bill (Dec. 12, 2011)
Yesterday, Ian Masters, host of Background Briefing, heard over KPFK radio from 11AM -12 Noon Pacific time, interviewed retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Army office who at one time held the position of Director of Staff under Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
In the course of his 19 minute interview with Ian Masters, Wilkerson dropped a bomb shell when he revealed that it was the Obama White House which INSISTED that Sens. Levin and McCain re-insert the clause identifying American citizens on US soil as being eligible for the military "snatch and grab" covert abduction operations --after McCain and Levin had initially EXEMPTED American citizens from the roundup list. The entire 19 minute audio clip of the Lawrence Wilkerson interview with Ian Masters can be downloaded from this link (upzip the file after downloading):
(The entire Background Briefing radio show for Dec. 11, 2011 is available from this link)
Here's is the portion of the transcript of Wilkerson's interview where Wilkerson tells Ian Masters that the treasonous Subtitle D, Detainee Matters, Sec. 1031 McCain/Levin version of the passed Senate bill S-1867 was included at the insistance of the White House, despite planted news stories to the contrary!
This portion of the interview picks up at the 13 min, 35 second mark
Ian Masters: So, ..you made a very clear case how dire the consequences are for an attack on Iran and also how counter-intuitive is our dealings with Iran by pushing them to the wall. And this bill does that. And it has the support I believe, of something like 96 to 5 SEnators, it's an eh..I don't see how the President can over-ride; I mean how he can sustain a veto.
But we've also had the examples of the sacking of the British embassy by the Baseigi militia, the religious police of the Iranian regime, And there are a lot of speculation now that as the US gets out of Iraq, that some of the Iranian militias there in Iraq could go after the Green Zone or go after the consulate in Basra.
Do you think that there's a possibility of not just on the US side provoking it, but a paranoid regime in Iran, feeling threatened, could strike out?
Lawrence Wilkerson: I do think that's a possibility. I particularly think it's a opissibility with the RGC, in its capacity to direct elements of Iranian Naval forces, and the proximity of forces in the northern INdian Ocean. I'm hoping; I'm praying that our commanders in the northern Indian Ocean bring in amp[hibious task forces, battle groups, and so forth, , are instructed with ROE, or at least develop their own Rules Of Engagement that will allow them to back away from such a move and not get something started, a la Tonkin Gulf, or something like that.
You could conceive of an IRGC commander, or someone like that, starting something without even instructions from Tehran. So, just the proximity of forces, especially at sea, is a dangerous thing.
Ian Masters: So what explains then, ...you were saying earlier that there's a kind of fever going there, on Capitol Hill that,..that margin of 96 to 5 or 96 to 4 or something that voted for that particualr amendment for putting the squeeze on Iran.Eh,...there's no way that the President can sustain a veto. He's apparently taking a personal participation in these negotiations.
Lawrence Wilkerson: It's my understadning that with regard to the amendment we were talking about that allows the armed forces into essentially domestic law enforcement, as long as it's related to terrorism, or quote:"associated activities", unquote, the reason that got applied to domestic situations, to US citizens in other words, is because of the White House!
Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, actually was puzzled that when they had pulled the language out that would make it apply to US citizens--very purposefully so--the White House insisited on the language going back in!
So, this is not only apparenthy something that the White hOuse won't veto, it's something that they made as BIZARRE as anything could be, in my view. Putting the armed forces of the United States into a domestic role in terms of terrorism or associated activity. This borders on, ah just short of, of declaring Martial Law for things related to terrorism.
Ian Masters: But the military don't want this role, my understadning is.
Lawrence Wilkerson: That would be my STRONG understanding. The military already is roiling under its additional roles which should be being done by civilian agencies such as training police in foreign countries, such as holding military tribunals for people who should be in the Article 3 courts of this country. The military doesn't want these additional tasks. We're very fortunate that we have in the military, people who understand the civil-military relationship in this country and the necessity for the military to stay subordinate in that relationship, better than the rest of the country does. You won't find ten people if you go ask across the country what is the Civil-military relationship in the United States who can give you a satisfactory answer, but you'll find almost every officer in the armed forces can, so we're very fortunate that we have an armed force like that, but we're pushing them, we're p[ushing them towards being different, and that's dangerous.
(The balance of the interview transcript will be posted within a few days)
Copyright 2011 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|