The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support

By Madison Ruppert

Editor of End the Lie

An official US Navy photograph of detainees at Camp X-Ray at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If our government makes the call, this could be the horrific reality for countless American citizens for untold years or even decades (Credit: U.S. Navy/Shane T. McCoy)

This is one of the most tragic events I have written about since establishing End the Lie over eight months ago: the horrendous bill that would turn all of America into a battlefield and subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without charge or trial has passed the Senate.

To make matters even worse, only seven of our so-called representatives voted against the bill, proving once and for all (if anyone had any doubt remaining) that our government does not work for us in any way, shape, or form.

S.1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012, passed with a resounding 93-7 vote.

That’s right, 93 of our Senators voted to literally eviscerate what little rights were still protected after the PATRIOT Act was hastily pushed in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001.

The NDAA cuts Pentagon spending by $43 billion from last year’s budget, a number so insignificant when compared to the $662 billion still (officially) allocated, it is almost laughable.

The bill also contained an amendment which enacts strict new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and any entities that do business with it, a move which will likely have brutal repercussions for the Iranian people – just like the sanctions on Iraq did.

Not a single Senator voted against this amendment, which was voted on soon before the entirety of S.1867 was passed, despite the hollow threats of a veto from the Obama White House.

Based simply on historical precedent, I trust Obama’s promises as much as I trust the homeless man who told me he was John F. Kennedy.

I wish that I could believe that the Obama administration would strike down this horrific bill but I would be quite ignorant and naïve if I did so.

Furthermore, the White House’s official statement doesn’t even say that they will veto the bill. In fact, it says, “the President’s senior advisers [will] recommend a veto.”

As Glenn Greenwald points out, the objection isn’t even about opposing the detention of accused terrorists without a trial, instead it is the contention that, “whether an accused Terrorist is put in military detention rather than civilian custody is for the President alone to decide.”

Obama’s opposition has nothing to do with the rule of law or protecting Americans, in fact, Senator Levin disclosed and Dave Kopel reported that, “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power”.

As I have detailed in two past articles entitled Do not be deceived: S.1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act and S.1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial, the assurances that this will not be used on American citizens are hollow, evidenced by the fact that the Feinstein amendment to S.1867, amendment number 1126, which, according to the official Senate Democrats page, was an attempt at “prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens” was rejected with a 45-55 vote.

Let’s examine some of the attempts to convince the American people that this will not change anything and that we will still be protected under law.

Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Antonio said, “In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in section 1031 that says that this includes ‘any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.’ This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.”

While this might sound reassuring to some, one must realize that the government can interpret just about anything as engaging “in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.

Consider the fact that the Homeland Security Police Institute’s report published earlier this year partly focused on combating the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative” which sets the stage for the government being able to declare that spreading the narrative amounts to “a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.

At the time I wrote:

Part of these domestic efforts highlighted in the report is combating the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative” but never addressed is why exactly extremist groups have the ability to spread their narrative.

A frightening conclusion that can be drawn from the focus on the “spread of the entity’s narrative” is that such claims could be used to justify limiting the American right to free speech.

It would be very easy to justify eliminating free speech if much of the United States was convinced of the danger of spreading terrorist narrative.

The report doesn’t specifically explain what the narrative is or why it is so dangerous, but one could assume that any anti-government, anti-war, anti-corporatist and pro-human rights speech could be squeezed under this umbrella. Essentially, anything that criticizes or questions the United States could easily be demonized because it is allegedly spreading “the entity’s narrative”.

This raises an important question: could my work and the work of others devoted to exposing the fraud that is the “war on terror” and the intimate links between our government and the terrorist entities they are supposedly fighting be considered to be supporting these entities?

Unfortunately, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is possible for the following reasons:

1) The Department of Defense actually put a question on an examination saying that protests are an act of “low-level terrorism” (which they later deleted after the ACLU sent a letter demanding it be removed).

2) Anti-war activists and websites are deemed worthy of being treated as terrorists and being listed on terrorist watchlists.

3) We likely will never even be told how exactly the government is interpreting S.1867.

In the case of the PATRIOT Act (which is overwhelmingly used in cases that are unrelated to terrorism in every way), there is in fact a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, as revealed by Senator Ron Wyden back in May.

In October, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit (read the PDF here) in an attempt to force the government to reveal the details of the secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act.

As of now, we still do not know how the PATRIOT Act is interpreted by the government, meaning that we have no idea how it is actually being used.

I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make the assumption that S.1867 would be interpreted in a straightforward manner, meaning that all of the assurances being made by Senators are worthless.

Glenn Greenwald verifies this in writing the following as an update to the post previously quoted in this article, “Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to confine military detention to those apprehended “abroad,” i.e., off U.S. soil — failed by a vote of 45-55.”

Furthermore, as I detailed in my previous coverage of S.1867, Senator Lindsey Graham clearly said, in absolutely no uncertain terms whatsoever, “In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland.”

The fact that the establishment media continues to peddle the blatant lie that is the claim that S.1867 will not be used on American citizens is beyond me.

This is especially true when one considers the fact that lawyers for the Obama administrations reaffirmed that American citizens “are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida,” although we all know that no proof or trial is required to make that assertion.

As evidenced by the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, no trial is needed for our illegitimate government to assassinate an American citizen.

We can only assume that it is just a matter of time until American citizens are declared to be supporting al Qaeda and killed on American soil without so much as a single court hearing.

CNN claims, “Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it’s not the bill’s intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.”

Yet, of course, they fail to cite the amendment, and quote Senator Feinstein in saying, “It supports present law,” even though Feinstein’s amendment was not passed.

The Associated Press reported, “Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeatedly pointed out that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.”

Yet they still quoted senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Christopher Anders who said, “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.”

The fact that the corporate-controlled establishment media is barely covering this – if at all – is just another piece amongst the mountains of evidence showing that they are complicit in the criminal conspiracy that is dominating our government.

Every single Senator that voted for this amendment is a traitor. It’s that simple. 97 of our so-called representatives, which you can see listed in full here, are actively working against the American people.

They are turning the United States into such a hellish police state that the world’s most infamous dictators would be green with envy.

Unsurprisingly, the top stories on Google News makes no mention of the atrocious attack on everything that America was built upon that is embodied by S.1867.

This legislation is clearly being minimized and marginalized in the press, as if it is some minor bill that will never be invoked in order to detain Americans indefinitely without charge or trial.

That is patently absurd and to assume such would be nothing short of ignorant to an extreme degree, given that the American government utilizes every single possible method to exploit, oppress and assault Americans who stand up for their rights.

Furthermore, the Senators who voted against S.Amdt.1126, the amendment to S.1867 which would have limited “the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031” should be considered traitorous criminals of the highest order, not to say that all 97 of those who voted for S.1867 are any better.

These Senators are not only defying their oath of office in waging war on the Constitution, they are also fighting to destroy the most critical rights we have in this country and in doing so are desecrating everything that our forefathers gave up their lives for.

Instead of British troops patrolling the streets in their red coats, it will be American soldiers who have the authority to detain you forever without a shred of evidence if they decide you’re a terrorist or supporting any organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

How they define that is anyone’s guess, but given that the entire interpretation of the PATRIOT Act is regarded as a state secret, we can assume that we will never even get to know.

Moreover, the fact that no charges or trial are needed under S.1867, the government needs no proof of supporting, planning, or committing terrorism whatsoever.

Since no evidence will ever be presented given that no trial or charges will ever be filed, they need not worry about that pesky thing called habeus corpus or anything resembling evidence of any kind.

All they need to do is declare that you’re an enemy combatant and suddenly you’re eligible to be snatched up by military thugs and locked away never to see the light of day again.

As far as I have seen, there are no detailed requirements set forth in the bill which have to be met before the military can indefinitely detain, and torture (or conduct “enhanced interrogation” if you’d prefer the government’s semantic work-around), Americans and people around the world.

What is stopping them from creating accounts for Americans who are actively resisting the fascistic police state corporatocracy which our once free nation has become on some jihadi website and using it has justification to claim these individuals are involved with terrorists?

What is stopping them from manufacturing any flimsy piece of evidence they can point to, even though they never actually have to present it or have it questioned in a court of law, in order to round up American dissidents?

The grim answer to these disturbing questions is: nothing. I regret having to say such a disheartening thing about the United States of America, a country I once thought was the freest nation in the world, but it is true.

I must emphasize once again that our government considers even ideology and protest to be a low level act of terrorism, so if you’re anti-war, pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-justice, anti-corruption, or even worse, if you’re like me and expose the criminal government in Washington that supports terrorism while criminalizing American citizens, you very well might be labeled a terrorist.

Keep in mind that the House sister bill, H.R.1540, was passed with a 322-96 vote on May 26th, now all that is stopping this ludicrous from utterly eliminating the Bill of Rights is resolving the differences which will be done by the following  appointed conferees: Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter.

Unsurprisingly, not a single person who voted against S.1867 is included in that list.

I do not hesitate in saying that what our so-called representatives have done is an act of treason that represents the single most dangerous move ever made by our government.

Every single square inch of the United States is now a war zone and you or I could easily be declared soldiers on the wrong side of the war and treated as such.

No proof, no charges, and no trial are required. They do not even have to draw spurious links to terrorist organizations in order to indefinitely detain you as they could easily declare the evidence critical to national security and thus withhold it for as long as they please.

I will continue to hope that Obama decides to go against every single thing he has done after being sworn in but I think the chances are so slim that it is almost delusional to believe that he will do this.

After all, the only reason his administration is opposing it is because it doesn’t give the executive enough power, not because it strips away every legal protection we have.

If this is not the most laughably illegitimate reason to oppose the attack on all Americans that is S.1867, I don’t know what is.

The most important question that remains unanswered, for which I am not sure that I have a viable solution, is: how do we stop this? Is there any way we can bring down a criminal government packed to the brim with traitorous co-conspirators in a just, peaceful manner?

After all, if the American people resort to violence, we are no better than those bloodthirsty members of our armed forces and law enforcement who kill and beat human beings around our nation and the world with impunity.

However, if our military and police forces realize that at any moment they too could be deemed enemy combatants and treated like subhuman scum and thus decide to refuse all unlawful orders and arrest the real terrorists in Washington, we might be able to reinstate the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which once defined our nation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with your ideas, comments and information for future articles on this subject and any other issue for that matter. You can get in touch with me directly at and hopefully I will be able to read and respond if I’m not deemed an enemy combatant and shipped off to a CIA black site to be tortured into confessing to killing the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

30 Responses to The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support

  1. Lisa stienster December 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    It appears that no one has left a comment. I don’t blame them. We’re all already ‘marked’ by simply having READ this article. For the final nail in my own pre-labeled FEMA coffin, I’ll say this one possibly last comment: the majority of the house/senate have officially drawn the line and proclaimed that We The People are THEIR enemies. At least they’re now being ‘honest’ about it. I’m already out of the borders of America, but they can still ‘get me’, officially, by their unjust, unconstitutional, barbaric, corrupt, treasonous new legislation(s). Let me make it clear then, in case I should disappear: I will NEVER give my consent or agreement to treasonous laws that oppose the organic Constitution of the United States, and, I read the end of The Book. Satan and his cohorts LOSE. My Lord and Savior is now and always will be Yeheshua (Jesus Christ), so I WILL stand over Satan himself for all eternity, along with my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Amen.

  2. M December 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    Actually, I poked around a bit, and found, oh, let me just post the quote: “NDAA has not been passed by the Senate…but the vote was actually for an amendment on the bill that would remove military detention language from the bill. The 61 votes defeated that amendment; it did not pass the bill.”

    • Madison Ruppert
      December 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM

      Why didn’t you post the source of that quote? It is not true or it is outdated. You can see from the OpenCongress link that it indeed passed and it is waiting to be reconciled with the H.R. and then it goes to the President for his signature.

  3. Dissident December 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM

    Wow. I’m speechless. How can we stop this insanity?

  4. Anonymous December 2, 2011 at 5:13 PM

    So can we legally detain senators that have their hands in the Al Qaeda’s pockets?

  5. Pingback: Senate passes bill stripping Americans of their constitutional rights – the Journalisk

  6. Anonymous December 3, 2011 at 4:11 AM

    Am wondering about why Geneva Convention and the current definition of terrorism and terrorist acts are based upon and administrative branche’s definition for a “terrorist report” to the pres which HAS to be tied to Geneva Treaty…

  7. follow up post December 3, 2011 at 4:15 AM

    I meant, wondering about why Geneva Convention and the definition weren’t mentioned.

  8. Bob December 3, 2011 at 12:16 PM

    Did you read the bill? Here it is:

    What about the Section, Subtitle D that says: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the Unites States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States”?

    That seems to be exactly the opposite of what people are saying it does. So, uh….yeah.

    • Madison Ruppert
      December 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

      Read 1031 and read my previous articles if you really would like to know what is going on. Do you understand what “required” means opposed to “prohibited”? There is a big difference. In 1032 it says they are not required to put American citizens in military detention. It does not say that it is forbidden. You must realize how law is written and how it is interpreted. Please actually do your research. Are you saying that Senator Graham, a supporter of the bill who voted for it, was wrong in making his statements on the floor? Or are you saying he was lying? I’m confused as to why you think you know better than the Senators who were in favor of this bill and how you do not understand the difference between required and prohibited. Do you realize that there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act? What makes you think that they will interpret this in a straightforward way? I don’t mean to be rude but you’d have to be either painfully naive or wholly ignorant of the post-9/11 system in America.

      Again, read my previous articles on the subject and read the bill. Don’t read one excerpt from one section, divorced from the legal precedents and the way that law is interpreted, and then think that you understand the bill or what the implications are. If you are still not convinced after reviewing my other two articles along with the documentation and sources I link up to then please reply back here and I’d be happy to discuss it with you. I can see that you’re either the owner of or associated with a supposedly skeptical website so I would implore you to actually live up to the title of skeptic and research your claims before making assertions that are demonstrably untrue to the point that it is almost laughable that you would say such a thing.

      Unless you think this law is isolated from history and the rest of law in which case you’ll likely believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, so-called “skeptics” far too often bring in their own preconceived notions into a debate thinking that for some reason logical fallacies and the most basic definition of a skeptic don’t apply to them. Okay sorry now I’m rambling. Please do actually read my previous articles, I know they’re long but this can’t be covered in 500 words.

      Edit: I got a good laugh from your conspiracy theory round-up post. I just wish you were able to present it without using such clearly loaded language while giving over-the-internet mental health evaluations. Out of curiosity, do you have any psychological training? Are you a certified clinical psychologist or at least a social worker? Furthermore, do you realize that one of the posts you linked to is an April Fools joke? I also find it amazing that you can find such wacky theories, how much time do you spend trolling questionable websites and forums like the joke that is Above Top Secret? Your post refers to conspiracies but much of what you link to is pure conspiracy theory. You must understand that there is a difference, unless I’m wrong in thinking that you’re an informed person which I hope is not the case.

      P.S. Can I see some substantiation for your claim that Lindauer is a “psychiatric case”? Again, if you could cite some factual evidence based on sound psychology I would enjoy nothing more than looking into it. However, pop psychology and unsubstantiated assertions weaken your case and make you look silly to anyone with a remote understanding of diagnostic protocol and psychological evaluation. I’d like to see the same with every claim you make in terms of mental health. Have you issued a psychological battery to Popeye or Lindauer? If so, would you be willing to share the results in a case study? How about an actual diagnosis according to the DSM-IV-TR?

      • Liberty December 3, 2011 at 8:04 PM

        Wow. WRECKED that fake skeptic

      • Bob December 15, 2011 at 5:31 PM

        Got your email. Happy to talk about these issues, as I do think that they are important. Actually, you are right on several points here. I think that it is important that you look at the law in the context of precedent. Great point. You have to look at the whole bill (I just don’t spam people with endless legalese if it is at all avoidable).

        The full relevant section is at this link. I hope you read it:

        The important parts read:

        (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
        (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

        And a little lower:

        (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
        (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
        (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

        I’m reading all of this as saying that the act is self-limiting to non-residents and “combatants” (a disturbing legal fiction some people take seriously, but there you have it). It says nothing about citizens. And because it does not alter the status of American citizens and legal resident aliens, it simply does not apply to them.

        If you look to precedent in the case of Padilla (which you mentioned to me in a private email), the supreme court upheld habeas, and he was tried as he should have been, in civil courts. The system worked there (eventually), I think. If you look at Hamdi (the american taliban), again, habeas was upheld by the courts. Hamdi is to my knowledge a free man in Saudi Arabia.

        I think that part of what is different is that when I see something is not mentioned, I leave it as “not mentioned.” When you see something as not mentioned but not explicitly forbidden, you see it as probably going on.


        • Bob December 15, 2011 at 5:45 PM

          I’m not just throwing words out there when I talk about Lindauer. I mean it. She’s not well. Look at this court case:

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- SUSAN LINDAUER, a/k/a “Symbol Susan”, Defendant.
          S2 03 Cr. 807 (MBM)
          448 F. Supp. 2d 558; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62872
          September 6, 2006, Decided
          September 7, 2006, Filed

          This was actually an important case, because it had to do with whether or not a patient who was mentally ill could be forced by the government to take medication to be made competent to stand trial and contribute to their own defense.

          Hilariously, my opinion DOES come from SUSAN LINDAUER’s DEFENSE who was using the edition of the DSM you accused my post of not considering. Oops. :)

          “2. Diagnoses
          Most of the reports referred to above, and some of [**9] the testimony at the hearing, dealt with the defendant’s diagnosis, using categories from a publication known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, or DSM-IV-TR. There was disagreement as to the diagnosis but, so far as I can discern, no material controversy. Thus, [*562] those arrayed on the government side agreed on a diagnosis of psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified (e.g., 5/4/06 Tr. 9-10), whereas Dr. Robert Goldstein, defendant’s retained psychiatrist, offered a diagnosis of delusional disorder, mixed type (5/9/06 Tr. 6; Goldstein Report 3/20/06, p. 2). A psychologist at Carswell wrote that defendant’s “inability to fully acknowledge and discuss her current symptoms of mental illness limits the accuracy with which she can currently be diagnosed.” (Shadduck Report 12/13/05 at 4) However, the focus of the hearing, and of the court’s concern, was rather on the symptoms that make defendant incompetent to stand trial, and to what degree those symptoms are amenable to treatment by forced psychotropic medication. (See 5/4/06 Tr. 35 (“[T]he name of the disorder is important, but the symptoms are what we’re treating.”) As to the symptoms [**10] that make defendant incompetent to stand trial, there was no disagreement, and no testimony suggesting that the label attached to the syndrome of which they may be a part matters at all in determining whether they will yield to medication, forced or otherwise.

          “Dr. Kleinman, the government’s retained psychiatrist, testified to three groups of symptoms that led him to his diagnosis of psychotic disorder not otherwise specified: (a) hallucinations, defined as distorted sensory perceptions, of three types: auditory, visual and tactile; (b) delusions, defined as false fixed beliefs, of two types: grandiose and persecutory; and (c) mood disturbances, hypomanic or manic. (5/4/06 Tr. [**11] 59) However, as he explained, it is only the delusions — false fixed beliefs — that interfere significantly with defendant’s ability to assist in her own defense; it is not the hallucinations or the mood disorder. (5/4/06 Tr. 66)…
          Bob recently posted: This Week in Conspiracy (11 December 2011)My Profile

          • Bob December 15, 2011 at 5:46 PM

            Here, it may be useful to examine at least briefly the delusions the doctors perceived so that their effect on defendant’s ability to assist her defense can be appreciated. Dr. Kleinman describes a history of psychotic phenomena and episodes going back to defendant’s childhood, possibly as early as the age of 7, including purported gifts of prophecy and spiritual visitations (Kleinman 9/13/05 Report at 8-11; 5/4/06 Tr. at 93) as well as mood disturbance (id. at 12-14) and three varieties of hallucinations (Kleinman 9/13/05 Report at 14-21). He then cites five examples of Lindauer’s own writings as reflecting delusions of grandiosity: she suggests that she reported 11 bombings before they occurred, suggests that she speaks with divine inspiration, places herself at the center of events in the Middle East, and declares herself to be an angel. Further, he cites seven of her writings as evidence of paranoid delusions: that she was under government surveillance [**12] from hidden cameras inside her apartment; that the CIA and FBI were after her because of difficulties in this country’s relationship with Syria; that the Egyptian government had made an attempt on her life; that the intelligence community was subverting her, including by blowing up the modem on her computer; that men next door had videotaped her on instructions of President Clinton; and that other threats and surveillance had been carried out against her (id. at 26-32). As a further example of both grandiosity and paranoia, he cites evidence that Lindauer has believed that objectively neutral environmental stimuli — such as lights going on or off, or a statement by a radio announcer — refer specifically to her (id. at 32-33).
            Although Dr. Kleinman testified at the hearing that he usually likes to conduct personal interviews of people whose mental state is at issue in legal proceedings, he added that he is aware that such people [*563] are motivated to either exaggerate or minimize symptoms, and so he relied on what he called “collateral data,” which I take to mean journals and correspondence and other pre-existing statements by the subject that were made before there was any intent [**13] to influence the outcome of a legal proceeding. (5/4/06 Tr. 61) His initial report relied almost exclusively on such data.
            Dr. Drob, the defense psychologist, based his conclusions solely on interviews with Lindauer, and reported only grandiose delusions, although he did report her claim that the government fabricated documents in connection with the current case. (Drob Report 2/28/05 at 7) He noted that defendant is adamant that she is in fact “an important government operative and that all her actions were in fact sanctioned by the intelligence branches of the United States government.” (Id. at 5) She was, she claimed, a “back door channel between the US and Iraq.” (Id. at 6) He said that she insisted also she is owed and was cheated out of millions of dollars for negotiating with Libya, apparently to secure reparations in connection with the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. (Id. at 5, 6) Although Dr. Drob was resolutely agnostic even as to claims by Lindauer about her involvement in the Lockerbie negotiations, her role in getting weapons inspectors into Iraq, and her involvement in getting President Clinton to prevent a nuclear terrorist [**14] act in the United States in 1995, characterizing such claims only as “extremely unlikely” (id. at 13), he did conclude that “when Ms. Lindauer begins to speak about her psychic powers it becomes eminently clear that she is delusional, and that the grandiose claims she makes about her participation in government affairs (although they may contain kernels of truth) are in all likelihood largely the product of her own psychotically disturbed imagination.” (Id. at 14) He dismissed her claim that she had prophesies about the Iraq war when she was a little girl, and knew days in advance of every specific target in Iraq and every assassination, as “delusional on its face.” (Id.)
            Bob recently posted: This Week in Conspiracy (11 December 2011)My Profile

  9. Alice December 4, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    A fish rots from the head, and this fish STINKS.

  10. don December 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM

    So, aren’t those esteemed Senators who voted for the Amendment or for passage of this repugnant Bill all traitors to their sworn oaths, who could be tried for treason? [But, who will try them?] OR, under said Bill, just remove them from circulation.

  11. Alice December 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM

    Today I scanned through the broadcast local tv stations. Nearly all show nothing but stadiums filled to the brim with “fans” cheering football teams. The nation is collapsing around their ears, and hundreds of thousands are there instead of marching with OWS. Shame.

    • Anonymous December 4, 2011 at 6:59 PM

      I thought the same thing!

  12. Big M December 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM

    Now you know why FEMA has been building all of those camps!

  13. Dave Mowers December 4, 2011 at 3:16 PM

    One wonders why Google is creating an index search function for names, I.D.’s and pseudonyms that can be used to search out all the posts made on Face Book and any other website by said names or I.D.’s. How coincidental that while the government is passing and tweaking legislation that could be used against you based on your posts, Google is in fact tweaking their own search engine to allow for easy to use indexing of individuals online posts?

    Meanwhile back in “fantasy conspiracy land” PRODIGAL- Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning is being implemented. Interesting terminology;


    “A person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way.”

  14. Anonymous December 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM

    I moved from Montana which has some of the dumbest sheeple on earth to Oregon 30 years ago. and love it here. It is time to succeed from the union and let the right wing nazi zionist controlled states live in the hell they created with their cowardice.

    • Anonymous December 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM

      Wow do you mean secede? Where did you learn English?

  15. Howard T. Lewis III December 4, 2011 at 10:05 PM

    Since every American terrorism event since and including 9-11 was done by allies of a certain American entity, and the HAARP attacks and intentional DH oil well blow out and Wall Street fraud facilitated by the same criminal cabal, there should be little disagreement as to where these arrests should begin. I will take any other course very personally and make sure that the sheeple end up paying the bill.

  16. dano J December 6, 2011 at 6:21 AM

    This is bad,bad, bad!
    Freedom is screwed, democracy is screwed, rule of law is screwed. The world will suffer from this action, but Muslims are the first on their list, Muslims are sitting on the resources they need for the next phase of their plans, Muslims are sitting on the land that is will be ‘Greater Israel’ . With the American public castrated of any say in the matter-the whole sale ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Muslims can begin. ( Why do you think the zionist hijacked government of the US spurned the chemical weapons ban recently-I mean for wholesale killing nothing beats WMDs)

    Any American who opposes this will naturally be labeled ‘alqaida sympathizer’. Over time the labels will evolve but all the extra judicial killings, arrests without trials etc of Muslims and high security prisons like gitmo are actually ongoing preparations for Americans dissenters-Muslims they can kill with impunity why drag them all the way here?

    So Americans brace yourselves for the forces of evil-you’ve played the video games now play the real thing-coming soon to your neighborhood.

  17. Max December 15, 2011 at 5:32 AM

    Hmmm. So if terrorists are a threat to the USA, and every law protecting the people therein has been reversed in order to protect them, and if torture is legal, then all that remains is for the military chain of command to arrest and torture everyone involved in threatening the safety of US citizens. I do not approve of torture, even for people who claim the right to torture, however now that the Federal Government has made it plain that they are the only real enemies of their own constituents, I only hope that the military patriots go easy on them. Don’t be sadistic fellas, you are above it. It’s like US “representatives” have taken way more rope than they will ever need to hang themselves. I’m good with that.

  18. Max December 15, 2011 at 5:38 AM

    Nothing would be what it is
    because everything would be what it isn’t
    and contrary-wise
    what it is
    it wouldn’t be
    and what it wouldn’t be
    it would
    you see?

    What if a hard core group of military patriots is just making like a santa’s list of the totalitarian weasels among the e-vote elected vermin we are fretting about?

  19. Howard T. Lewis III December 15, 2011 at 10:45 AM

    If anybody knows where Lindauer is, please tell her that if she makes it to the Big Island of Hawai’i, i would be honored to deliver mai-tais, iced tea or a telephone or ? to her beach blanket FREE! The creeps mess with a lot of people who know to fight back.

  20. gene willis March 10, 2012 at 1:33 AM

    the ndaa has been siged by the traitorest obama.the military can now take anyone into custody for any reason.america no more.obama and the trators in the senate betrayed there oaths of office.america no more.the people in this country are now at war with the goverment.god save us all.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Confirm you are NOT a spammer

CommentLuv badge

End the Lie allows you to put your keywords with your name if you have had 9 approved comments. Use your real name and then @ your keywords (maximum of 3)
More in Featured, Police State, United States of America (602 of 1093 articles)

Advertise on End the Lie

Would you like to have your business or service exposed to thousands of people every day here at End the Lie? We have a wide variety of options available all at unbeatable prices. At the same time you will be supporting a truth-oriented news outlet as well as hardworking independent journalists across the United States and the world.

If you would like to know more please email us and please be sure to include the details of what you are advertising, what your budget is and what type of advertising format you are looking for, including size(s), length of advertising period and any other pertinent details. The more information you give us, the more accurate the quote will be. We might also be able to work out some unique advertising tailored to your needs so feel free to contact us with questions and ideas.

Note: our advertisers have absolutely no input in what we cover or how we cover it. If this is problematic, you might want to seek out another news outlet. Here at End the Lie we put the truth first and thus no sponsor will be able to control our content. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and we will not advertise pornography or anything which might otherwise be illegal.