Blog / Development / Security

Drew Zahn, writing for WorldNetDaily, takes issue with Infowars declaring Obama’s “national emergency” amounts to martial law. “An article by Kurt Nimmo of InfoWars took the worry a step further, wondering if the White House’s declaration engaged certain measures of the National Emergencies Act,” writes Zahn. “But even if there really is a plot to manipulate the H1N1 virus scare into enforcing a sweeping expansion of federal power, today’s ‘national emergency’ falls far short of martial law.”

Zahn writes that the laws enacted by the president’s proclamation merely clear administrative hurdles for processing of Medicare payments and that the provisions of the National Emergencies Act cited by Obama in his proclamation limit the power his administration can take. He then cites Section 301 that forbids the president from taking up any powers of the National Emergencies Act except those listed in the proclamation of emergency. The list deals with Medicare, Medicaid, HIPAA privacy regulations, and other bureaucratic functions of the department of Health and Human Services.

Infowars noted that Obama’s “national emergency” is likely a scare tactic designed to stampede people into getting the vaccine. The National Emergencies Act, however, is part of a larger framework designed specifically for the implementation of martial law. The law allows the president to revoke the right of habeas corpus under Article 1, Section 9. It also grants special powers to the executive in times of national emergency and underscores the threat the executive poses to the civil liberties of Americans, regardless of the stipulations in Section 301.

Revoking the right of habeas corpus is unconstitutional. So is declaring a national emergency without congressional approval. The Constitution declares, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

It may be argued that Obama is invoking the Constitution for the sake of “public safety,” that is until you look at the facts — the H1N1 “pandemic” does not threaten the safety of most Americans. It is far less deadly than seasonal flu. When was the last time a president declared a national emergency over seasonal flu?

A state of emergency (regardless of the pretext) allows Obama to do a number of things. As Dr. Harold C. Relyea, a specialist in national government with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, has written, “when the President formally declares a national emergency, he may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Obama’s declaration, however, is incidental because the United States has been under a state of emergency since September 14, 2001. Bush extended this “emergency” (against a bogus terrorist threat) on August 28, 2008.

Read more

The chilling proposals are spelled out in a Home Office document discussed at a meeting of Whitehall officials and council leaders last month.

It warns emergency plans may be needed in areas where there are not enough graves to cope.

The 59-page document talks about using “a grave that is for a number of unrelated persons, excavated mechanically in advance and designed for efficient preparation and use”.

The internet is filled with threats real and imagined, from malicious hackers to government censors.

Beyond the hacks and cracks — and in celebration of Sunshine Week — we’ve compiled a brief list of some of the biggest public and private threats facing the internet.

Warrantless Government Monitoring: Following the Sept. 11  terror attacks, the practiceof wiretapping all internet traffic began in the United States with the Bush administration, and is now being defended in court by the Obama administration. All of the nation’s major internet service providers are accused of funneling Americans’ online traffic to the National Security Agency without warrants.

Private Censorship: From the mundane to the frightening, the examples run rampant. Wikipedia, the world’s most trafficked online reference tool, is subject to shameful spin from  trusted names of news organizations to the not so trustworthy engines of commerce. Among the examples, The Boston Globeenhanced the biography of a columnist while deleting information about his alleged plagiarism. Dieboldexcised an entire section critical of the company’s voting machines.

Government Censorship: Reporters Without Borders reported last week that 12 nations — China, Burma, North Korea, Vietnam, Egypt,
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba and Tunisia restrict internet access and often prosecute users for what they post online.

Even in democratic countries, censorship rears its ugly head. On Thursday, a secret blacklist surfaced detailing 2,395 webpages the Australian government is planning to filter from the internet. While about half of them dealt with illegal pornography, the remainder did not. Some of the sites were about gambling, dentists and even dog kennels.

In December, Wikipedia couldn’t be edited by users in Britain. The entire site was put on a blacklist because it linked to the 1976 album cover of Virgin Killer by the Scorpions, which featured a nude young girl.

Read more