Friday, November 20, 2009

The "Big Question": Why Did McManus Sell Out the Constitution?

Sellout: McManus joins John Yoo, the Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin, and other neo-fascists in defending the Regime's illicit terror tribunals.

The management clique in Appleton is just as proud as a mother hen over the fact that Jack McManus is among those chosen by The Hill newspaper to comment on various topics in a blog feature entitled "The Big Question."

According to an Appleton press release, "Readers will gain valuable insight from McManus' Constitutional perspective."

On the basis of the most recent edition of "The Big Question," it appears likely that readers will be fed a casserole of regurgitated Republican talking points.

In the most recent TBQ, McManus recites the neo-con position on 9-11 trials, insisting that "These trials should be held in military courts where no [discovery or due process] rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals."

As late as early 2006, before Jack and his colleagues turned the JBS over to the short-lived reign of the "Madison Avenue Boys," the JBS and The New American candidly acknowledged that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional and illegitimate. TNA has likewise acknowledged that the terrorism tribunals are illegitimate.

In fact, today's TNA website (November 20) has an incisive and witty article by Becky Akers taking exactly the opposite position from the one set out by Jack in today's "The Big Question." "Attorney General Eric Holder announced last Friday that after 8 years of illegal imprisonment and 183 waterboardings from a government that does not torture, Khalid Sheik Mohammed will stand trial with four other suspected terrorists in New York, scene of their alleged crime on September 11, 2001," writes Akers. "That ignited a fracas. Whether there should be a trial at all and where to hold it, not only geographically but in a civilian or military court, set the usual loudmouths roaring."

As Jack's equivocation demonstrates, that question likewise set the usual suck-ups to sucking.

"Neocons who refuse to call Gitmo’s inmates prisoners of war lest they come under protection of the Geneva Convention now wail that we cannot try soldiers in a civilian court; Democrats doggedly defend their inept and arrogant Administration," she continued. "Were we cynical, we might suspect a conspiracy to distract us from the real issue: why has Leviathan `detained' Khalid et al for years despite the Constitutional requirement of habeas corpus, torturing them in violation of not only the Constitution but basic humanity?"

Akers concluded her terrific piece by imagining some of the useful trouble that might ensue if a "fully-informed jury" were to hear the case against Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

"What would a `fully informed' jury decide regarding Khalid and associates? Would it concur that they acted in a vacuum, murdering Americans because they hate our freedom, as the Feds pretend? Or would it consider 9/11 retribution for the carnage cursing the Middle East after decades of American meddling and skullduggery there? Would it pronounce the accused `guilty,' or would it suggest that terrorists rebelling against the American empire understand the Constitution better than politicians who’ve sworn to uphold it yet `regime-change' worldwide? Would it damn Khalid Sheik Mohammed as the devil incarnate, or would it ask why the Feds ignored warning after warning of the impending attack? Heck, it might even notice that the wrong terrorists are on trial."

This is the kind of perspective that the JBS used to provide, before it was neutered by the Thompson/McManus/Scholl combine. Before Scholl and the highly paid, principle-free PR people he hired decided to have the JBS "ride the Republican wave," TNA would proudly and defiantly denounce tyranny and corruption of the Regime in terms very similar to those used by Akers. Heck, a lot of that material was published on the old Birch Blog, which Appleton quite thoughtfully consigned to cyber-oblivion.

That brings up another point.

The letter of termination sent to me in October 2006 listed my "firing offense" as publicly disagreeing with the Thompson/McManus/Scholl clique in a matter of "nuance." Yet here we see a TNA contributor (Akers' name is listed on the current TNA "tombstone"), in an essay published by TNA, vehemently expressing exactly the opposite view from the one expressed by TNA's Publisher on the same day.

Is this what you had in mind, Jack? Communist-turned Nazi Judge Roland Freisler (center) convenes a session of the Nazi "People's Court," that regime's version of the "terror tribunals" Jack now supports.

So once again, given a choice between taking a lonely stand on behalf of principle or playing to the Red State Fascist lobby, Appleton chooses the latter and applauds itself for displaying "leadership."

This is what "leadership" means to McManus and his fellow geldings in JBS Upper Management (assuming that the term "fellows" applies here): He's using a relatively high profile spot to recite pre-digested neo-con talking points. What good is "influence" if it's used to ratify the designs of the Constitution's enemies?

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, which actually promotes individual liberty rather than the warmed-over Feenyite authoritarianism McManus peddles, points out that the obvious and undeniable ancestor of the "Terror Tribunals" McManus supports is the German National Socialist Regime. Given some of Jack's other enthusiasms, that pedigree might not be a deal-breaker for him.

Video Extra: "Raving Roland" Holds Court

Roland Freisler is seen in the full flower of his malignancy in this film clip. Any resemblance to Fox "News" programs such as The O'Reilly Factor is ... just a coincidence. Or not.


Anonymous said...

The leadership in Appleton is truly pathetic. Little boys trapped in mens bodies they clearly will do and say anything to be considered relevant by the Mainstream Media. Throw in a healthy dollop of paranoia and you clearly have a schizophrenic group of people running that organization.
Maybe the troubled children could look to Ron Paul for a little guidance. He clearly demonstrates that the more you stand on principle and for truth and the less you babble on about a vast conspiracy, the more relevant you are and the more sought after your opinions become.

Anonymous said...

When compared to themselves they're growing. When compared to anyone else ... Well the chart speaks for itself.

And look at this one...

traitor2tranny said...

Maybe McManus as president of the JBS is morphing it into the George Bush Society.

Ex-JBS said...

Pathetic! Jack and that whole Appleton crew just keep going from bad to worse.

That military tribunal hype is also being promoted by none other than Rand Paul on his own website at:

Rand Paul even criticizes the Obama administration for NOT keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open ... And, as if that's not bad enough, it is stated that Rand Paul "thinks military spending should be our country’s top budget priority".

Has the whole world gone mad?

Anonymous said...

I think McManus and others in the JBS took the wrong turn when they decided to back the government's position on what happened on 9/11. 9/11 was an inside job, and therefore the wrong people are being put on trial.

Anonymous said...

Will, what do you think of G. Edward Griffin's Freedom Force? Do you think it's a suitable alternative to the JBS?


William N. Grigg said...

I admire Ed and think his Freedom Force is a good concept. I don't know much about its organizational dimension, but Ed's research is meticulous, his presentation flawless, and he's a man of principle.

What is the advantage, if any, to JBS membership today? One can "audit" the organization and participate ala carte -- attending speeches, subscribing to TNA, buying books (do those people even publish books any more?), etc.

Membership dues amount to a surcharge one pays for the purported privilege of taking direction from the organization's current management clique. That's hardly a value-added proposition, as Jack McManus's continued equivocation about basic constitutional principles illustrates.

Anonymous said...

Actually, in the effort to unveil nefarious criminal activity, the investigations of political conspiracies is a worthwhile enterprise that should be undertaken by any independent, anti-establishment news commentary publication. Pursuing the truth is important, whether it reveals conspiratorial machinations or not.

The problem is that the New American magazine has been steadily moving away from the hard-hitting investigative journalism that used to characterize its lead stories. TNA had exposed actual conspiracies such as the OKC bombing conspiracy of the FBI/SPLC-saturated, Elohim City Hole-In-The-Wall gang of Aryan misfits and the world government conspiracy of the US State Department with its policy study document 'Memorandum Number 7: A World Effectively Controlled By The United Nations' by Lincoln P. Bloomfield.

One will now find that Lew Rockwell's web site has been offering more investigative articles featuring possible intrigue and conspiracies than the New American.

TNA began its precipitous decline right after it swallowed the official whitewashed version of 9/11 and decided to ride the 'GOP wave' of party hacks. I began to notice it in late 2001 with all of their sappy jingoistic themes. I wanted to puke red, white and blue but was too busy giddily sticking yellow 'support our cannon fodder' ribbons on my Abrams tank and waving united State flags from my ass. Barely three months after that watershed event, the December issue of the New American had it all figured out: Saddam Hussein was the 9/11 co-ringleader with Osama Bin Dead (since at least 12-2001). Heck, TNA even implicated the bogeymen Russians no less! Ouch! Good job, research department! But no one dared to ask "Who really sunk the Maine?". Oh, no! That was forbidden territory. Perhaps after a hundred years certain people will muster the courage to challenge the official theory. Or perhaps not.

None Dare Call It Inside Job.