The Nature and Direction of the “War on Terror”
By Rocco J. Piserchia
Originally posted on January 13, 2012
The entire premise of the “War on Terror” must be rejected. First and foremost it’s illegal and therefore illegitimate. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the legal authority to declare war. Any war that’s undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress is illegal. This illegal practice of an executive or presidential war has characterized all US wars after World War II. President Eisenhower committed the US to the Korean War under the authority of the United Nations, not Congress.
Of course it’s absurd to maintain that the “War on Terror” could be legally declared by Congress since it’s impossible to legally declare war on an ideology or, as Ron Paul has stated, a tactic. Terrorism defined as either as ideology or tactic can not be vanquished by an illegal declaration of war. (In order to win the “War on Terror” would all references to the words “terror” and “terrorism” need to be removed from every dictionary?) The “War on Terror” is open ended, i.e., no one can proclaim when it will end and what the objectives are. It’s been used as a pretext for illegal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya. (The US military has routinely used air drones on targets in Pakistan which is an act of war.)
If you think the war in Afghanistan was justified it was still illegal in that Congress never declared war against Afghanistan. US forces continue to be deployed and engaged in Afghanistan after 10 years yet our nation managed to end World War II within 4 and a half years. Illegal wars often have no clear objectives and therefore may be used as pretext to indefinitely continue hostilities. Another terrible result of illegal wars is that no clear resolution is ever achieved, i.e., “winning” is elusive if not impossible. When the objectives of a military invasion are intentionally ambiguous the results are also ambiguous.
The fact that the “War on Terror” is ambiguous is intentional. By claiming that our nation is at war the federal government continues to exercise carte blanche to incrementally nullify the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. All of the unconstitutional executive orders and legislation that began during the Bush administration have been accepted and expanded under the Obama administration. Understanding the illegal and irrational nature of the “War on Terror” helps expose the two party system as a sham. It’s naïve to claim that the Republican Party is to the right of the Democratic Party when the Obama administration has advanced the “War on Terror”. The inherently bogus conflict between the Right and the Left is also evident in that both parties in Congress have passed legislation related to the “War on Terror”.
The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01. The Patriot Act was largely written by John Yoo, an attorney with the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. Congress was told to pass the Patriot Act even though they had no time to even read, much less understand, the content of it. Among its provisions we find that any misdemeanor is classified as an act of terrorism:
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping’ and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping’;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’;
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
After the Patriot Act other legislation has been passed by Congress including the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Central to the mythology of the “War on Terror” is the fluid definition of what constitutes Terror and therefore who may be classified legally as a Terrorist. The Department of Defense (DoD) has trained employees that protest is a low level expression of terrorism. “A multiple choice question included on a Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course required for all DoD personnel asks the following question: “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?” The correct answer is “protests.”
The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) published a report dated 02/20/09, MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement. “According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous “militia member”:
The United Nations
The New World Order
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Illegal Immigration” 
In March of 2009 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Domestic Extremism Lexicon. “This product provides definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States.” In this training document the following terms are listed: alternative media, antiabortion extremism, anti-immigration extremism, direct action (defined as “Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience”), and patriot movement (“also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist”)
President G.W. Bush claimed that he had the authority to declare any US citizen an “enemy combatant” and that any one so classified could be detained indefinitely without a trial by the military. President Obama continued to claim this dictatorial power and his administration even claimed to have the authority to execute US citizens living abroad merely suspected of terrorism. It was also disclosed that the Obama administration has a list of US citizens who are targeted for assassination.  In September of 2011 President Obama proudly announced that two US citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, were executed by US air strikes in Yemen.  “”This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “Working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans, and to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.”  President Obama’s remarks are Orwellian – the US can execute anyone in the world including US citizens without due process or any disclosure of evidence and this somehow helps “to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.”
The World is a Battlefield
The logical outcome of the “War on Terror” is that the entire world is to be considered a battlefield and therefore anyone accused of terrorism, including US citizens in the USA, are viable targets for indefinite military detention or even execution. The fabricated threat of terrorism is so great there’s no longer the necessity of due process and a jury trial. This treasonous position was defended by President Obama. “In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.”  “It is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. [And the FBI says that activists who investigate factory farms can be prosecuted as terrorists.] And see this.”
The position that US citizens may be indefinitely detained without due process by the military has now been legislated in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Congress. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) looks and sounds crazed when he proclaims on the Senate floor that anyone who requests a lawyer will be told to shut up:
In context Senator Graham said,
“Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it’s the battlefield!… Why would we say that if you’re in Afghanistan, we can blow you up and put you in jail forever, [snip] but if you can make it to America, you’re home free? You can’t be interrogated by our military, or CIA; you get a lawyer and that’s the end of discussion? That’s what you would be doing! That’s crazy! … It is not unfair to… hold American citizens as long as it takes to find intelligence [snip]. When they say, “I want my lawyer”, you tell them, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) described what he wants a person accused of terrorism to experience:
“I want that person to be terrified about what’s going to happen to them in American custody. I want them not to know what’s going to happen. I want the terror that they inflict on others to be felt by them as a result of the uncertainty of not knowing … what our interrogators are going to be limited to.” 
Senator Lieberman stressed that the greatest threat to the “homeland” are homegrown terrorists who are radicalized Americans.
Senator Lieberman openly rejects the 8th Amendment,
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Senator Lieberman is at least consistent – he has no reason to support the 8th Amendment since he openly rejects the authority of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments:
Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Article III Section III also specifically guarantees a jury trial to any citizen accused of treason.)
The “War on Terror” is a massive and growing hoax. This war is against the American populace and it continues to metastasize as the Constitution is methodically eviscerated and our country is being transitioned into martial law. The entire post 9/11 domestic security apparatus was designed to help erect a police state- the aim was never foreign terrorists. If the “War on Terror” was valid the border with Mexico would have been secured shortly after 9/11/01. Under both the Republican Bush and Democratic Obama administrations the border with Mexico remains unsecured. However the TSA, as part of DHS, is being expanded beyond airports to rail stations, subways and other points of mass transit. Regardless of presidential executive orders, court decisions or Congressional legislation, no laws that contradict the Constitution are legitimate. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.” (Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison).
Our Founding Fathers keenly understood liberty as well as tyranny. “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin). “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself” (Thomas Paine). “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the rights of the people by the gradual & silent encroachments of those in power than by violent & sudden usurpations.” (James Madison). “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify” (Alexander Hamilton). May God grant us the wisdom to understand the gravity of our situation and the courage to help restore the Republic.
 Domestic Extremism Lexicon; 26 March 2009; (U) Prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
 The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 3 (107) 1759 [date of quote]
 1791 [date of quote] Dissertation on First Principles of Government
 1788 [date of quote] Virginia Convention
 1788 [date of quote] Federalist No. 33