Time for a discussion on LibLab's continual blind following of the US of A.

Because, where America goes, LibLabs follow.

Time to oppose the old parties by demanding a more independent path for our Foreign Policies, Trade, and Defence.

Time to consider the Greens' path. The Path back towards Freedom For Australians and Australia






10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free


Below is today's column in the Sunday Washington Post. The column addresses how the continued rollbacks on civil liberties in the United States conflicts with the view of the country as the land of the free. If we are going to adopt Chinese legal principles, we should at least have the integrity to adopt one Chinese proverb: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies. Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were.

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own - the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don't operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of "free," but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens - precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. Citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite Detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law "whatever the law is," the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")

Arbitrary Justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless Searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens - and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret Evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security - a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War Crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret Court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity From Judicial Review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual Monitoring of Citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court - a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as "Orwellian." (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary Renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers - including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an in

The Greens'

http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/global-economics

Principles

The Australian Greens believe that:

all peoples in the world have the right to sustainable economic development.
economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to, ecological sustainability.
global economic systems must be democratic, transparent and accountable.
global economic systems must promote and respect human rights, including the rights of workers, women and children.
global economic systems must enhance the right of communities to democratically determine their own future and priorities.
debt crises result from the actions of both debtor and lender nations; governments and international institutions should introduce policies to reduce both large deficits and large surpluses.
the inadequate response to the global challenges of climate change and oil depletion poses a grave threat to the global economy.
Goals
The Australian Greens aims:

a global economic system that promotes environmental sustainability, human rights and a decent standard of living for all.
international institutions that are democratic and that promote even, sustainable development.
the elimination of poverty and an end to the exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.


Measures


The Australian Greens will:

support mechanisms to promote sustainable international trade.
remove Australia from existing bilateral Free Trade Agreements, where possible.
enter into multilateral trade agreements, except where a bilateral trade agreement favours a developing country.
use multilateral international trade agreements and membership of multilateral finance organisations to promote human rights and environmental sustainability.
at the international level, support the implementation of a currency transaction tax (Tobin Tax) to discourage global currency speculation and to provide an independent tax base for international institutions.
provide incentives for developing countries to pursue economic development strategies that encourage self-reliance and prioritise the sustainable production of goods and services from local sources.
prohibit the trade in goods that have been produced through the exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.
ensure that Australian companies operating internationally comply with international human rights, labour and environmental standards.
seek the creation of a UN sanctioned regulatory environment to govern the operation of transnational companies, tax havens and flags of convenience.
use Australia's involvement in international trade fora to advance the needs of developing countries.
use multilateral international trade agreements and membership of multilateral finance organisations to seek the cancellation of the debts of least-developed countries and the removal of punitive loan conditionality imposed on poor countries.
support abolition of, unless radical reform can democratise, the IMF, World Bank and WTO.
resist the development of international trade regimes that seek to extend the concentration of control over intellectual property.
establish mechanisms to prevent the debt crisis from recurring, such as introducing the potential for penalties for surplus as well as debtor nations.

http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/international-relations

Principles

The Australian Greens believe that:

Australia must act diplomatically to promote democracy, peace and security, ecological sustainability and human rights.
Australian foreign policy should benefit both the Australian people and the people of the countries with which we engage.
the principles of the United Nations Charter and Declaration of Human Rights, and adherence to effective global environmental governance, must underpin foreign policy.
all peoples have the right to self-determination.
developing nations have the right to economic independence and to sovereignty.
lasting solutions to conflicts both between and within nations depend on delivering social, environmental and economic justice to the peoples involved, and on ensuring they can exercise their civil and political rights.
lasting resolution of conflicts requires a commitment to non-violent means of political engagement.
use and promotion of violence against civilians, whether perpetrated by a state, an organisation or individuals, should be rejected as a means to achieve political ends.
women should be fully included in all aspects of international relations and peacemaking initiatives.
Goals

The Australian Greens aims:

peaceful, cooperative and long lasting relationships between Australia and the governments of other countries, based on mutual respect.
an independent foreign and defence policy for Australia.
increased accountability and transparency in foreign policy.
fair international relations with other peoples and governments in accordance with the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law.
all countries to act through the United Nations to prevent acts of genocide and to ensure that people’s human rights are not violated by governments.
trading relationships with other nations which benefit both countries, ensure just rewards for local producers and help to alleviate poverty.
development models in Pacific countries based on sustainable, environmentally sound local development, with the participants determining the pace of change.
closer involvement and cooperation with the countries of South East Asia.
the continued strengthening of the process of democratisation of Asia and societies throughout the world.
self determination for the people of West Papua.
Australia, the international community and the UN to work cooperatively with East Timor to complete the development and nation-building tasks.
a peaceful solution to the long running conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and lasting peace and stability to the Middle East as a region.
an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq and the expropriation of its resources.
the promotion amongst Australians of a broad understanding of the multicultural nature and history of countries in our region and the rights, needs and aspirations of their people.
Measures
The Australian Greens will:

support the growth within our region of localised participatory democracy that can strengthen social cohesion and foster the active participation of disenfranchised communities, particularly women and young people, in decision making.
require trade agreements to be multilateral, reviewable by Parliament and to include clauses on the observance of human rights and labour laws, health and safety standards and environmental standards, to ensure that trade is not conducted at the expense of manufacturing and rural workers’ or consumers’ rights or of environmental sustainability.
ensure Australia acts decisively within UN supported operations to prevent acts of genocide and crimes against humanity and to bring perpetrators to trial in the International Criminal Court.
provide ongoing commitment to the Regional Non-Aggression Pact.
in conjunction with regional partners, develop a regional environmental protocol to protect the environment.
ensure that Australia applies the principle of equal but differentiated responsibility as enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in negotiating post-Kyoto Protocol commitments.
support the inclusion of a category for environmental refugees in the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Refugee Convention.
increase the number of places within the Humanitarian Migration Program to include environmental refugees.
provide access to Australia’s labour market for Pacific island workers.
engage with the ASEAN group and Pacific Forum to work towards economic and health solutions for the region to assist those living in poverty and to improve their health care.
provide support for the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and the work of regional and national human rights organisations, including Indonesia's National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).
seek support within the United Nations for a democratic process of self determination under autonomous governance in the West Papua Region.
support the rights of the Palestinian peoples to statehood through the creation of a viable state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, based on the pre 1967 borders and the right of all peoples in the region to peace.
immediately withdraw Australian forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
continue to provide aid for the task of reconstructing East Timor.
support the right of developing nations to economic independence and their sovereignty over natural resources such as oil, including East Timor’s sovereignty over oil and gas in the Timor Gap.

AMENDED PROPOSAL: That the Australian Greens recognise the rights of the Tibetan peoples over their traditional homelands and their rights to self determination including cultural and spiritual expression. We recognise their elected representatives. Further we condemn the plundering of Tibet’s natural resources and destruction of Tibetan cultures by the Chinese Government. This Conference calls on the government of China to end the repression in Tibet and heed the call of the Tibetans for restoration of their rights and freedom.

____ wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 3:42am:

Except for that little tiny weany thing called one world governance and the fact that the greens are full of shi...

____ wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 4:12am:

Hell no. That is in defence of why greens will never get true power. you know, the power you get because you were actually elected by the people. Not the power you get because you wormed your policies in due to a power vacuum around the edges of the actual elected.

____ wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 4:44am:

Best to stay with the truth and the truth is, a vote for the greens is a vote for foreign power over the liberties and power of Australians, in Australia.

____ wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 5:17am:

Fact. Greens = One World Government

The Greens want one world government - the most dangerous notion to ever appear.