Kagan’s Constitutional past as well as her moral past is dirty as hell.

Posted: May 14, 2010 in Current Events, News, Politics
Tags: , , , , , ,

Washington has probably never been known for its honesty.  Rather it has been known for its dishonesty, secrecy, and scandals.  For Barack Obama to bring change to Washington he would have to break the mold on this one, which he won’t.  The assualt on the Constitution presses on.  This time in the form of Kagan.  Both articles courtesy of PrisonPlanet.com.

Suppression of 9/11 investigations…

In addition to the attacks on free speech, detainee rights and the close connections to Goldman Sachs, another noteworthy black mark on the record of Elena Kagan, the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, is that she played a significant part in killing off the efforts of 9/11 victims’ families to bring lawsuits against members of the Saudi Royal family for financial links to the conspiracy.

Last year, thousands of family members filed suits claiming that Saudi Arabia and four of its princes actively aided in financing the terrorist attacks through front groups posing as charities.

The New York Times ran a report in June highlighting how documents uncovered by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.”

The documents consisted of “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families, according to the report.

The families also pointed to a 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks.

Had the cases been heard, the exposure given to the Saudi connection would have undoubtedly opened the flood gates for more suppressed evidence surrounding the attacks to emerge.

“The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.” writer Barry Grey noted at the time in his excellent piece on the government’s effort to shut down the lawsuits.

“Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.” Grey wrote.

Enter Elena Kagan.

In her previous role at the Justice Department as Obama’s Solicitor General, she declared that “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” owing to “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

Kagan effectively protected the oil rich Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action to hold it liable for the attacks.

The move just happened to come less than a week before Obama was scheduled to meet and bow before Saudi King Abdullah as part of his “rebuilding” trip to the Middle East.

More than 6000 9/11 family members denounced the move as an “apparent effort to appease a sometime ally” in a public statement.

Less than a month later, The Supreme Court ruled that it would not allow any of the lawsuits to go ahead, agreeing that the Saudi princes should be protected by sovereign immunity – a concept that seems to have no bearing on CIA drone delivered missiles raining down on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Following the debacle, Senators Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham introduced legislation to allow US citizens to sue foreign governments if there is evidence they may be supporting terrorist activity. Spector said of Kagan “She wants to coddle the Saudis”.

The Saudi 9/11 Connection

Senator Bob Graham, who sat on the 9/11 Commission, has also charged that Saudi involvement in the attacks has been covered up.

As we have previously reported, US authorities, including the FBI, allowed the entire Bin Laden family to fly out of the US, and back to Saudi Arabia, in the days after 9/11, without questioning any of them.

Furthermore, agency documents later revealed that the FBI were aware that Osama Bin Laden himself may have personally chartered one of the flights. They subsequently redacted his name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”

The documents provide clear proof that the FBI was protecting the Bin Laden while the rest of the world was being told that he had masterminded the biggest terror attack in history. The FBI then attempted to cover up this fact.

The same documents revealed that the Bureau did not consider a single Saudi national nor any of the Bin Laden family worthy of investigative value.

The protection of Bin Laden by federal authorities has been ongoing since BEFORE 9/11 when agents were told to “back off the Bin Laden family” in order to protect business interests that the Bush family had with the Bin Ladens and other Saudi nationals.

The FBI asserts that no one on the planes that left had any terrorist links, yet documents (specifically FBI document 199I WF213589) uncovered back in November 2001 prove this to be a falsehood.

The Obama administration is now continuing the exact same long running policy as the Bush administration by obediently backing the Saudi monarchy and keeping secret this vital information on 9/11.

Not sympathetic to the Second Amendment…

In addition to attacking the First Amendment, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court also argued against the Second Amendment.

Kagan Argued Against Second Amendment In Gun Case onepixel  
  Kagan Argued Against Second Amendment In Gun Case kagan
   
  “I’m not sympathetic,” the Second Amendment, said Kagan.
   

In 1987 as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, Elena Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol, according to Bloomberg.

The man argued “the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

Kagan believes the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.

Kagan told lawmakers last year when she was the nominee for solicitor general that she accepted the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court. “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms,” she said.

Kagan added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.

In answers to written questions by Patrick Leahy submitted in February of 2009, Kagan said: “Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation.”

Kagan’s previous stated opinions on the Constitution include her belief that the First Amendment should be modified by the government in order to prevent societal harm.

In addition to papers written in the 1990s on this subject, Solicitor General Kagan argued in favor of prohibiting political speech by corporations. Supreme Chief Justice John Roberts directly criticized Kagan’s argument that the government has the authority to ban political pamphlets.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.

“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Justice Kennedy said the law had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”

In addition to opposing the First and Second Amendments, Kagan has argued against the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

According to the New York Times, Kagan said “that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

Kagan’s “elastic interpretation” of the Fourth Amendment echoed remarks made by Eric Holder during his confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General.

In 2009, Obama outlined his policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s