Thread: Are Teachers Even Addressing US War Crimes and Destruction of the US Constitution?

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Are Teachers Even Addressing US War Crimes and Destruction of the US Constitution?
Carl Herman
Activist Post

We teach limited government under a constitution that secures unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This first right means that one's life cannot be taken by tyrannical government.

The two-minute video below is Defense Secretary Panetta claiming US law allows assassinating Americans if government merely says an American is guilty of a crime. Acts upon what the leader says at any given time rather than limited power under law is the etymology of dictatorship. “Law” based on the dictates of a leader is exactly what Nazi Germany had; their word for leader was fuhrer.

The 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution promise that if the government is to seize you, let alone assassinate you, they have to follow due process to secure persons’ unalienable rights:

video at link below


The 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution promise that if the government is to seize you, let alone assassinate you, they have to follow due process to secure persons’ unalienable rights:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury (that means a jury of one’s peers, not the dictatorship of 'the leader')... nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..., 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.

Department of Defense Chief Counsel Jeh Johnson spoke to Yale's law school and repeated the claim of government authority to dictate any American as a "terrorist" or "terrorist supporter" and be assassinated. This is in Orwellian contradiction to 5th Amendment rights that government cannot deprive you of your life without the above explicit due process. Importantly, Mr. Johnson, the War Department’s top “legal” voice, had more to say: government-dictated assassinations cannot be legally challenged through US courts.

President Obama instructed Justice Department lawyers to defend unlimited warrantless searches in Orwellian violation of the 4th Amendment. Such searches could be claimed as evidence of “supporting terrorism” and then not subject to review after assassination.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act and 2012 NDAA "legislated" dictatorial authority to declare any person a "terrorist supporter," seize such persons, and hold them indefinitely and without rights.

President Bush and VP Cheney previously claimed that controlled drowning (waterboarding) is an acceptable method to interrogate and receive confessions, despite US courts’ unanimous rulings that this is torture and that the US hanged WW2 Japanese authorities for its use.

These policies to crush dissent protect US obvious violation of war law to engage in current Wars of Aggression. The publicly-stated "reasons" for these wars are tragic-comic lies easily proved as such with a few moments' attention.

This is US "law" in our world of the present, and in "emperor has no clothes" obvious violation to the Bill of Rights for all persons (not just citizens).

If we just used "nation x" and "government official y" for the above facts, and students identified them as examples of the US form of government, we would be horrified at their fundamental confusion, yes? We have other names for such forms of government.

Americans who receive their "news" from the six mega-corporations that dominate ~90% of "reporting" will never view clearly-stated facts of the above topics. The CIA disclosed to the Senate Church Committee that they had 400 persons working with the largest US media market to spin stories favorable to administration policies. The facts argue this is still active practice.

Colleagues in education: how are you teaching US War Crimes and destruction of the US Constitution?

Or, do you ignore these changes as you suffer from cognitive dissonance, American Exceptionalism, or the “Big Lie” (and here)? Is it that you haven't heard about them clearly through the "news" you receive? Or can you ethically justify government claims for removing unalienable rights as somehow Constitutional?

I would really like to know how teachers are teaching these war crimes and the destruction of rights, or how they would dispute them. Please comment and share this to get other teachers' perspectives.

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher in economics, government, and history with a passion for research, education, and lobbying for improved public policy. See more articles by Carl Herman Here. Contact him at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Activist Post: Are Teachers Even Addressing US War Crimes and Destruction of the US Constitution?


Maybe some of those teachers need this as well....

U.S. Constitution
U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Bill of Rights

First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] (see annotations)
Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] (see annotations)
Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops (1791)] (see annotations)
Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)] (see annotations)
Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] (see annotations)
Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] (see annotations)
Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] (see annotations)
Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] (see annotations)
Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] (see annotations)
Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States (1791)] (see annotations)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
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.
Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Bill of Rights | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

School board chair Candy Olson confirms Florida Family Association’s assessment, says “…it is highly unlikely that a teacher would invite CAIR..” official policy is in limbo.

The school board’s statements and actions (inactions) made during the February 28, 2012 confirmed Florida Family Association’s assessment of victory and further documented that it is highly unlikely that this board will vote to approve a policy that prohibits CAIR officials from addressing students.


School board chair Candy Olson confirms Florida Family Association’s assessment, says “…it is highly unlikely that a teacher would invite CAIR..” official policy is in limbo.

Florida Family Association issued an email alert on February 23, 2012 which stated that based upon certain facts that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) officials would not be addressing students at Hillsborough County Schools in Tampa Florida anytime in the near future.

The Hillsborough County School Board discussed again on February 28, 2012 how to respond to the public outcry over a high school teacher allowing CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) officials to make presentations to students.

The school board’s statements and actions (inactions) made during the February 28, 2012 meeting confirmed Florida Family Association’s assessment of victory and further documented that it is highly unlikely that this board will vote to approve a policy that prohibits CAIR officials from addressing students.

Board Chair Candy Olson confirmed Florida Family Association’s assessment that CAIR officials would not be addressing students anytime in the near future. She said “I have to tell ya. I know you don’t like to hear that I trust our teachers. But I think it is highly unlikely that a teacher .. if a teacher chooses to invite a speaker in would invite CAIR right now. They don’t want to be the target of this kind of thing.”

School District Superintendent MaryEllen Elia prepared “a management directive” that “asks teachers to look for speakers recommended by the district, consult with their principals and refrain from inviting advocacy organizations.”

School Board Chair Candy Olson went on record numerous times to make it clear that this “management directive” was “NOT a policy.” She said “I am not at all sure this is a policy. What Ms. Elia and I talked about was a description of what we do.” When Tom Gonzalez, school board attorney, referred to MaryEllen Elia’s “management directive” as policy Board Chair Candy Olson quickly corrected him saying “Not a policy yet.” After which Gonzalez no longer referred to the management directive as a policy.

The school district plans to hold a workshop at a yet to be determined date without further public audience comment to discuss the possibility of shaping policy to address outside speakers. And what are the hopes for policy being generated at this work shop? Again, Board Chair Candy Olson said “I am concerned about what a policy would say.”

The Tampa Bay Times reported “a majority of board members agreed that Elia's guidelines can stand.” However, Board Chair Candy Olson declined to allow a motion on Elia’s “management directive” and polled the board members on their agreement to follow this directive until a workshop. Olson declined to take a vote thereby avoiding making this “management directive” a formal “policy.”

What’s the big deal about adopting a policy for determining who gets to speak to students? Lawsuits for those left behind. Much of what happened at this meeting was a tight legal dance which appears to have been lightly scripted and planned. No motions, no votes. Nothing official and clearly labeling a plan as a "management directive."

But the bottom line, as Florida Family Association reported as a victory on February 23, 2012 “it is highly unlikely that a teacher would invite CAIR right now. They don’t want to be the target of this kind of thing.”

Nevertheless, Florida Family Association made three more public records requests of specific teachers and board members in this school district on February 28, 2012 and will respond with further action if necessary.

Florida Family Association supporters sent over 10,000 emails to each school board member and the superintendent opposing CAIR in public schools. Your emails made a difference.

Click here to read the history of this issue at Floridafamily.org

Full Article



hmmm could it be be "see something say something" at work here???