From "ad hominem" to "abusum auctoritate"

Join the movement: http://www.peopleagainstndaa.com/

Types of political attacks most common used by politicians to the general public to avoid answering, science or dumbfound the citizen presenting the argument. 

From “ad hominem” to “abusum auctoritate.”

The phrase ad hominem is Latin for “to the man” or “to the person.” It is a logical fallacy most often used when a person is unable to dispute a factual argument and resorts to attacking the credibility of the person. With public officials today however, ad hominem seems to escalate into abusum auctoritate or “abuse of authority.”

This abuse of authority is most often exhibited in the form of using enforcement officers and the military for personal benefit. 

USWGO Reporter Brian Hill and an Oklahoma citizen (who wishes to be known as H. Ra) were both escorted out of public meetings this week for asking questions about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and H.R. 347, bills that many groups from both sides of the spectrum have said violate over half the bill of rights and U.S. Constitution.

In the first video, which you can see below, H. Ra confronts Oklahoma Representative James Lankford on HR 347, the invasion of Libya and the NDAA. Mr. Lankford first addresses House Resolution 347, or the “Anti-Protest Act”. On his explanation for why he voted for this bill, he says “Look at the whole bill on this one” and maintains that a person must have inflicted bodily harm to be arrested under the bill.

However, H.R. 347 clearly states in section (a) (2) that any person who:

“knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds”

It is extremely important to note here that “restricted buildings or grounds” also means:

“building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting”

The Representative addresses H.R. 347 in a concise, although misguided, manner. He addresses the resolution to prosecute the president under the war powers act in much that same way. However, when the National Defense Authorization Act comes up, things start to change.

“You can’t find a way to detain an American citizen under section 1021.”

Yet Section 1021 of the NDAA states that people who fit any of these criteria can be placed under “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities.”

“A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. ”Under Section 1021 you can be detained for committing a belligerent act, substantially supporting associated forces, or substantially supporting associated forces engaged in a belligerent act.

And no one really knows what those terms mean.

As judge Katherine Forrest stated

“The Government was unable to define precisely what “direct” or “substantial” “support” means. . . Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.”

Representative Jim Lankford’s responses are incorrect, but his next move was an egregious use of power.

After accusing H. Ra of “having a version of the bill from the internet” and not carrying the real language of the bill, H. Ra began to walk out. Before he could however, Rep. Lankford had the crowd remove him from the meeting. This includes a military officer, who you can see at the very end of the clip.

This leads us to North Carolina State Senator and president pro tempore Phillip Berger.

Sen. Berger recently rejected a Nullify-NDAA petition with over 220 signatures for Rockingham County on no certain grounds.

“I am currently the only that that knows this information as his office played dirty by refusing to put out a public record about the senators decision [to reject the petition] except by notifying me over the phone , which cannot legally by recorded without consent by the other party.”

Shortly after a Mayodan City Council meeting on July 9th, 2012, USWGO Alternative News reporter went up to Senator Berger and began to ask him a few questions on why he rejected the petition. The Senator refused to answer, and motioned for the chief of police to remove him. After the camera was shut off, he was allegedly intimidated and told not to come back.

You can see how both of these incidents revolve around the Representative doing what they can to avoid the questions of their constituents. This decreases government transparency, and should be a warning flag to anyone looking to vote for these representatives.

Although the standard procedure for a politician who was unable to contradict another’s facts used to be ad hominem, we can see in these cases and many others that it has now being backed up with abusum auctoritate.

What are they afraid of?

DONATE: https://www.wepay.com/donations/people-against-the-national-defense-act-panda

Join the movement: http://www.peopleagainstndaa.com/joinus.php