| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
| Israel Shamir wrote:
The Great Manhattan debate on the Lobby:
an additional report by Shamireaders’ own Dan of New York
(with a few great new discoveries among them Khalidi’s saying that the
Mearsheimer/Walt paper overestimated the influence of The Lobby on
foreign policy but also underestimated its influence on domestic policy
such as The Patriot Act. This is exactly a point we were doing all
along: the Jewish Lobby’s primary goal is not Palestine, but your
freedom.):
On the way to the Israel Lobby debate at
Cooper Union, we saw an
anti-war rally with some sort of disturbance going on as a dozen young
people ran around on the little island on Sixth Avenue across from the
old site of the Peppermint Lounge. The twist to the rally was that it
was a corny parody of a 60’s antiwar rally played out by some actors.
So
fake out: just another corporate tourist skit for Manhattan’s
relentless
disneyfication.
Two friends were with me; one was deathly ill but insisted on coming.
And there was indeed a Nunc dimittis cast to the unprecedented event,
exemplified by several moribund looking octogenarian gents in blue
blazers who hobbled out at the end presumably to hail a cab to a
funeral
home: "Now, may Thy faithful servant depart..."
The Israeli team, Indyk, Ross, and Ben Ami incarnated the truth of
Mearsheimer’s self-evident thesis. Indyk, for his career trajectory
from
Aipac research director to ambassador to Israel. Ross for his role as
Israel’s lawyer at Camp David, and the Israeli Ben Ami for
debating an
American domestic issue. One of his absurd stratagems was to reproach
Mearsheimer for having left out Israel from his forty-page paper on the
American Israeli Lobby, evidence of "shoddy scholarship." As they sat
there I could imagine Indyk doing his velocirapter "stare of death" and
menacing the mild unflappable Mearsheimer: "What is the audience going
to believe? Us or the evidence of their own eyes?"
For connoisseurs and mavens of bullshit and squid ink there were a few
choice delicacies
to savor spread on wry. After Ben Ami’s vehement and
otiose complaint (So what are we? Chopped liver?), my favorite of these
was Ross’s contention that 9/11 couldn’t possibly have anything to do
with Israel since at that time the Peace Process was proceeding so
successfully that Arabs had no grievance against the US for its
alliance
with Israel. He grinned broadly like a winning game show contestant as
he extruded this pearl of pilpul to the groans of some in the audience.
Some people can’t take a joke. They really should have laughed but they
probably read the New York Times and take the shell games of discourse
management seriously.
The "Israelis," – which I think is the best term of art with which to
absolve Indyk and Ross of the charge of dual loyalty –represented the
"good cops" and the "human face" of Zionism, the Labour left, hence the
hair-splitting nano pilpulism as opposed to the heavy metal large bowel
rage of a Dershowitz or Perle. The latter would have found it a bit
trickier (but surely possible) to object "indykgnantly" to the term
"cabal" in the paper since Perle himself, (aka the "Prince of
Darkness--the antonomasia he enjoys) and his cohorts in the Pentagon
indeed referred to themselves as "The Cabal." These guys are basically
deadpan schizophrenic comedians:
"What? You think that’s funny? This
soi-disant "Cabal" is one example of Mearsheimer and Walt’s clincher:
The Lobby boasts of its power and vilifies and smears anyone who points
out its power. Indyk, Ross, and Ben Ami’s basic line was whatever on
earth you meant by The Lobby, it’s not us so you’re an anti-Semitic
boob
and we have little else to say. This posture was quite entertainingly
acrobatic for the grotesque contortions they had to assume, rather like
imagining Benny Morris delivering a eulogy at Deir Yassin in a red
dress
and stiletto heels.
Amidst all the lies, pilpulisms, schizophrenic comedy, academic
negotiations, and discourse management, Mearsheimer was outstanding for
his simple clarity and his calm under Indyk’s stare of death. It seemed
miraculous that this provincial professor (actually he’s a Brooklyn
boy)
should stand up to the Scarlet A accusation and Indyk’s Spielbergian
special effects with such serene bemused sangfroid.
The first question posed by the moderator had been "Was the paper
"anti-Semitic?" While the reaction was not
quite the gale force shit
storm Dershowitz would have unleashed, the turds began flying and so
besmeared, Mearsheimer soldiered on, without benefit of either
psychological intensity, death stares, or glib verbal prestidigitation.
And he had in fact been a soldier, an American soldier who came to
academia
through his own long march and who perhaps spoke from his
conviction that American soldiers should not sacrifice their lives for
Israel. And there was also the fact that he spoke the truth and in
doing
that the Holy Spirit was his advocate and our consoler. Perhaps he was
"wise as a serpent"; he was
certainly "gentle as a dove."
Tony Judt, the only noteworthy American Jew to endorse the paper in
print, towards the end of the debate compared The Lobby to the Irish,
Poles, and Cubans perhaps to palliate the outrage that had taken place.
Rashid Khalidi was swift on the uptake with what appeared to
me at
first
another negotiation when he asserted that he thought the
Mearsheimer/Walt paper overestimated the influence of The Lobby on
foreign policy but also underestimated its influence on domestic policy
such as The Patriot Act. He might have gone on to discuss The Military
Commissions Act passed three days ago by congress that has effectively
abrogated habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights for the infinite
duration
of the perpetual war against evil, extremism, and olive trees. RIP:
American Republic.
Khalidi also got the biggest laugh of the evening since the audience
seemed disinclined to bust a gut over the Israeli’s schizophrenic
schlock. When Ross’s microphone wouldn’t work, Khalidi passed him his
own, quipping, "this is the first time a Palestinian has ever had the
chance to give the opposition permission to narrate." The big laugh was
for the recognition of the late Edward Said’s poignantly abject
petition
for the Palestinian to be granted "permission to narrate." I thought it
was interesting that Phillip Weiss of The New York Observer, in his
self-absorbed and aptly titled column "Mondoweiss", bleached the phrase
into "enable to narrate" and so missed the poignancy of the point. In
retrospect, the joke brings a tear with a smile since the Palestinians
still don’t have permission to narrate their way far beyond a few
beleaguered and expensive academic courses.
In any event, with the passage of the Military Commissions Act,
Americans can enjoy greater solidarity with the Palestinians and their
outlaw status. Now we are subjects of a not so benign global hegemony
based on fear, terror, and torture administered by a new "unitary"
executive. How did this happen? Who did this to us? Why? (rhetorical
questions, folks: I’m a comedian too). The bill passed without
opposition and only perfunctory kvetching from chatting class hacks and
other MSM. The campuses are all chill and laid back and like,
"whatever." Indeed, the noteworthy opposition came from Arlen "Single
Bullet Theory" Spector who enjoyed doing a few soft shoe turns and
exhibiting his concern for the chilling effect the bill might have for
civil liberties. Then he voted for the bill anyway, expressing his
confidence that the courts will pilpul in perpetuity over it.
At the end of the last chapter of The Prince entitled "Exhortation to
Liberate Italy from the Barbarians", Machiavelli speaks of "the
barbarous tyranny that stinks in the nostrils of us all." Here in the
erstwhile republic most folks don’t smell a thing but a few of us are
breathing through the mouth as we watch and pray and narrate without
permission.
Dan from New York
PS. We need translators from French to English! | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
| From: WelchHome
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:54:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Welcome to Fascist America:
my thoughts on that -
---------- "Just As 'Legal' As Hitler in 1933" ---------
So, how did Bu$h get to be just as 'Legal' as Hitler was in 1933 ? Step by 'Legal' Step...
Quote: "Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering
Washington - Friday 29 September 2006 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime. He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs." end of quote
Quote: "High Court Backs Police No-Knock Searches
WASHINGTON (June 15, 2006) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.
Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote." end of quote
Quote: "Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
WASHINGTON -- April 30, 2006 President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.
''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."" end of quote
Gonzales "Legalized" Torture.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 - Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security.
A request by Mr. Gonzales produced the Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security. The issue was whether al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan should be accorded the Geneva Conventions' human rights protections.
Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from such protections. Bush agreed, reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world. Rumsfeld issued an order the next day to commanders that detainees would receive such protections only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."
On January 25, 2002, Gonzales wrote a memo to President Bush arguing that the terrorism fight "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
''My judgment was ... that it would not apply to al-Qaida or others - as they weren't a signatory to the convention,'' he said.
When the text was leaked to the public last summer, it attracted scorn from military lawyers and human rights experts worldwide. Nigel Rodley, a British lawyer who served as the special U.N. reporter on torture and inhumane treatment from 1993 to 2001, remarked that its underlying doctrine "sounds like the discredited legal theories used by Latin American countries" to justify repression." End of Quote
Gonzales "Legalized" Repression.
Quote: "WASHINGTON (Feb. 6) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush was "acting with authority" both under the Constitution and federal law in eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. In a statement prepared for the hearing, Gonzales called the monitoring program "reasonable" and "lawful."
Gonzales, who was not sworn in, told the committee, "As the president has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the (electronic-monitoring National Security Agency) requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack."
His arguments reiterated those defending President Bush's decision to allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without first obtaining warrants, on people inside the United States whose calls or e-mails may be linked to terrorism.
But in his prepared remarks, Gonzales said he could not discuss how the program works, as skeptics of the program have demanded. "An open discussion of the operational details of this program would put the lives of Americans at risk," he said.
Gonzales argued that Congress did, in fact, authorize the president in September 2001 to use military force in the war on terror.
He noted that the legislation "calls on the president to protect Americans both 'at home and abroad,'" and "to take action to prevent further terrorist attacks 'against the United States.'"
But congressional Democrats have said they did not intend to order domestic surveillance." End of quote
And so - as the Chicago Mafia Gangsters used to say - "The Fix Is In" -
Bu$h's "legal mouthpiece" - Alberto Gonzales - has produced "Legalized Torture and Repression" - Just like Germany had in 1933.
Bu$h also gave himself the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Now the Bu$h 'Anointed' Supreme Court has wiped out the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
---- History repeats itself. Welcome to Berlin, 1933 ----
Alberto Gonzales is a lot like Franz Gurtner, another conservative nationalist lawyer and judge - who was appointed by Hitler to head the Reich Ministry of Justice, and who got along - very well - with the Nazis despite not being a Nazi himself.
How did the German Legal system change as a result of Nazi 'leadership'?
Fear-mongering was the main tool used to change the law, and to undermine civil liberties. So, where the constitution was changed, the code of criminal procedure was also changed, extraordinary powers were vested in the Executive, including extensive police powers; and the powers of an independent judiciary were destroyed.
This was all done based on a "terrorist menace." And exactly what the menace was, shifted from time to time during the Nazi period. It was a matter of opportunism, or convenience.
Judges couldn't be impartial anymore. They used only Nazi interpretations in making their decisions. In the everyday practice of law the ideas of the Fuhrer (Hitler) were silently but loyally followed. People feared the legal system, but nobody could - legally - stop Hitler. And even Nazis no longer had the civil rights once guaranteed by the German constitution.
Hitler was asked - In September 1931: "How do you imagine the setting up of a Third Reich?" His reply was, " We will enter the legal organizations and will make our Party a decisive factor in this way. But when we do possess constitutional rights then we will form the State in the manner which we consider to be the right one." Hitler was asked: "This too by constitutional means ?" Hitler replied: "Yes."
Nazi conspirators participated in German elections, the legal system, and in the Reichstag to undermine the parliamentary and judicial system of the German Republic and to replace it with a dictatorship of their own.
On 30 April 1928, Goebbels wrote in his paper "Der Angriff": "We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, inside the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. We become members of the Reichstag in order to paralyze the liberal Weimar sentiment with its own assistance. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and per diem for the this "blockade" (Barendienst), that is its own affair." Later in the same article he continued: "We do not come as friend nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies: As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come."
Crucially, Gurtner - like Alito and Gonzales - ruled that vital "national interests" - as defined by Hitler as head of state - had precedence over the rule of law. Time and time again, Gurtner supported unlawful measures and even murders, because they had been declared by Hitler as crucial for the "survival of the state." That's what makes the efforts by some American lawyers - like Alito and Gonzales - and most GOP politicians - to argue that the president can and should be above the law - so disturbing.
It appears that the GOP has transformed America into a society where we are ruled by 'special men' - rather than by laws - so we are all subject to the whims of the president and his appointees.
A president or appointee who imagines himself to be above the law is mentally and morally unfit to serve in public office; government lawyers who argue that the president is above the law are apologists for a dictatorship. They are the modern equivalents of Franz Gurtner, justifying the Nazi abuse of power and legal authority in the name of 'national security'.
[L]ike Hitler, the top police officials were open about the fact that they did not see themselves as bound by legal norms. In a speech to the Academy of German Law in October, 1936, Himmler bluntly stated: "Right from the start I took the view that it did not matter in the least if our actions were contrary to some clause in the law; in my work for the Fuhrer and the nation, I do what my conscience and common sense tells me is right."
Disregard for the letter of the law was seen as crucial to the Nazi defense of 'national interests.' The German police styled itself the "domestic army." Just as the German army on the battlefield could not be subject to legal regulation, so too, it was claimed, the fight of the German police at home must not be constrained by the rule of law.
As Himmler explained to German army generals on 21 June 1944, he could not care less whether the actions were legal or not: "What is necessary for Germany will be done, however horrifying it may be."
American soldiers and government contractors continue to violate the Geneva Conventions and laws against torture to serve the interests of their president and his appointees. They do what their immediate superiors tell them to do - as directed by both implicit and explicit statements from others high up the chain of command. Their actions are wrong, and they justify themselves by the same excuses used by police and military officials in Nazi Germany.
Today domestic surveillance exceeds that which is permitted by US law. Police, FBI, and National Security personnel believe that their attempts to fight terrorism justifies ignoring the law - indeed, they argue that laws which protect the rights of the accused and the innocent simply hamper police investigations and need to be curtailed. Franz Gurtner and Alberto Gonzales certainly agree.
The legal system, Hitler warned (in a speech to the Reichstag on 26 April 1942), must have only one thought: German Victory. It was high time, he continued, that the legal system realized that it did not exist for its own sake, but for 'national interests'.
Goebbels said, in 1935: "When democracy granted democratic methods for us in the times of opposition, this could only happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries, without any consideration, the means which were granted to us in the times of opposition."
A leading Nazi writer on Constitutional Law, Ernst Rudolf Huber, later wrote of this period: "The parliamentary battle of the NSDAP had the single purpose of destroying the parliamentary system from within through its own methods. It was necessary above all to make formal use of the possibilities of the party-state system but to refuse real cooperation and thereby to render the parliamentary system, which is by nature dependent upon the responsible cooperation of the opposition, incapable of action."
And today, GOP appointees like Gonzales and Alito and virtually all GOP elected and appointed officials think - and act - exactly like Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Franz Gurtner - and no longer have to care whether their actions are legal or not, as they impose the "Rule of Bush" over the stupid US Sheeple.
And they're just as "Legal" as Hitler was in 1933.
Joseph Goebbels spent his last days with his family in the Fuhrerbunker under the Chancellery. Following Hitler's execution, he disregarded Hitler's direct orders that he succeed as Chancellor. Instead, on May 1, 1945, he had an SS doctor execute his six children by lethal injection and had an SS orderly shoot him and his wife. Shortly before his death he said,"We shall go down in history as the greatest statesmen of all time, or as the greatest criminals." End of Quote
And that's how the Born Again Bush USA will "go down in history"... the most notorious criminals of all time.... | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: Habeas Corpus: The Lynchpin of Freedom |
| Habeas Corpus: The Lynchpin of Freedom
Lew Rockwell
October 12, 2006
by Jacob Hornberger
In the recently enacted Military Commissions Act, Congress acceded to President Bush’s request to remove the power of federal courts to consider petitions for writ of habeas by foreign citizens held by U.S. officials on suspicion of having committed acts of terrorism. While it might be tempting to conclude that the writ of habeas corpus is some minor legal procedural device that the president and the Congress have now canceled, nothing could be further from the truth. The writ of habeas corpus is actually the lynchpin of a free society. Take away this great writ and all other rights – such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, gun ownership, due process, trial by jury, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments – become meaningless.
The Framers considered the writ of habeas corpus so important that they specifically provided for its protection in the Constitution: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” As Alexander Hamilton put it, the writ of habeas corpus, along with the prohibition against ex post facto laws, “are perhaps greater securities to liberty” than any others in the Constitution.
Let’s assume that the president involves the nation in another foreign war but this time one in which there are significant military reversals involving the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops. Congress grants the president’s request to enact a draft to replenish the Pentagon’s human coffers. Federal spending, the national debt, income taxes, and inflation soar. To compound the crisis, terrorist bombs are exploded in a few American cities.
Assume also that this time the American people are angry and outraged over the president’s and Congress’s actions. They point out that the Constitution prohibits the president from starting and waging a war without an express declaration of war from Congress. They oppose subjecting themselves and their children to a draft and another foreign war. They point out that the terrorist bombs are a retaliatory response to U.S. foreign policy. Newspaper editorials protest the war. Demonstrations erupt across the nation.
At the height of the crisis, the president announces that criticism of federal policy is helping the terrorists. Congress grants his request to criminalize criticism of the federal government (much as the newly installed regime in Iraq, which U.S. officials continue to insist is now a free country, has done). The president issues an executive order as commander in chief extending the cancellation of habeas corpus in the Military Commission Act to U.S. citizens who aid and abet the enemy.
On orders of the president, FBI agents and U.S. military personnel begin rounding up recalcitrant newspaper editors, Internet critics, and anti-war protestors as “enemy combatants” for giving moral and intellectual aid to the enemy. The action, the president assures the nation, is temporary. The detentions will last only until the war on terrorism is won.
“But they couldn’t do that,” people might cry. “The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.”
Granted, but how is that provision enforced? Editors, critics, and protestors would be languishing in some military detention center, perhaps even the one at Guantanamo Bay. What good would it do to point out that people have the constitutional right to speak their mind, criticize government policy, and petition the government for redress of grievances? The president and the military would be in charge. They might listen politely, but then again they might simply take more people into custody in order to send a message: “Remain silent.” The doors to the cells would remain locked. The prisoners would be unconditionally subject to whatever treatment their jailers wished to impose. The prisoners would be prohibited from going to court to complain or to seek redress.
That’s where habeas corpus, a legal procedure whose use stretches back to 14th-century England, comes in. Over the centuries of struggle against royal tyranny, the English people came to the realization that rights were meaningless unless they could be enforced against government officials who jailed them for exercising them.
Moreover, the English people had learned what our American ancestors had learned – that the greatest threat to people’s fundamental rights and freedoms lay not with foreign enemies but rather with their own government officials. After all, don’t forget that the reason that our American ancestors expressly mentioned Congress in the First Amendment is that they recognized that Congress was an enormous threat to people’s freedom of speech and other fundamental rights.
Thus, the English people demanded and got the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which stated that “the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be denied.” A hundred years later, Americans, who had just a few years before been Englishmen who had revolted against their own government, inserted a similar restriction in the U.S. Constitution.
In the absence of habeas corpus, the detainee must continue languishing in prison for having criticized the government, comforted only by the notion that he lives in a country in which the Constitution says that people have freedom of speech. He has no way to get out of jail or force his jailers to treat him properly, other than to apologize, convince his jailers that he has reformed, promise that he will never do it again, and plead for mercy.
With habeas corpus, there is another alternative. The prisoner files a petition with the federal judiciary, which the Framers made a separate branch of government, equal to that of the executive and legislative branches. In the petition, he tells a federal judge, who is independent of presidential and congressional control, that he is being held without just cause. The judge issues a writ of habeas corpus, which commands the U.S. official who is holding the petitioner to appear in his courtroom post haste to show cause why he is holding the prisoner. If the jailer refuses to do so, the judge cites the official for contempt of court and issues a writ for his arrest. U.S. marshals are charged with serving the writs and enforcing them.
Under our system of government, the judicial branch’s interpretation of law, including constitutional law, trumps that of the other two branches. Once a U.S. district judge issues a writ of habeas corpus or any other judicial writ, the other two branches must comply.
At the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus, the judge hears sworn testimony. If he determines that the prisoner is being held without just cause, he orders the jailer to release him, and the jailer is required to comply with the judge’s order. In our example, the judge might say, “The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of people to criticize their government and its policies and there are no exceptions for crises or emergencies, including war. The law that converts government critics into aiders and abetters of terrorism is unconstitutional. You are hereby ordered to release the petitioner immediately.” Absent appeals, the prisoner would go free at the conclusion of the hearing. In the event of appeals, petitions for writ of habeas corpus are usually given priority over most other appellate cases.
In the absence of the power of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus, all the other rights and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights become dead letters. If there is no way to enforce the First Amendment, for example, through a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release from custody of a government critic, critical speech is inexorably suppressed. After all, how many newspaper editors, Internet critics, and war protesters would continue their criticism knowing that other critics were languishing in some dark, perhaps even secret, detention camp without hope of challenging their detention in court through a writ of habeas corpus?
Americans might feel comforted by the fact that the president and the Congress limited the removal of habeas corpus to foreign citizens and did not apply it to Americans. If so, they know little about the history of government oppression. Once people accede to the cancellation of judicial protections for “other people” – a grave wrong in and of itself – it is just a matter of time before the cancellation is extended to include them. After all, American officials would argue at the height of a new crisis, what is the difference between a foreign terrorist and an American terrorist? Shouldn’t they be treated the same? Aren’t they equally dangerous? Of course the suspension of habeas corpus should be extended to American terrorists, the argument would go. After all, aren’t American terrorists also traitors?
Consumed by fear that “the terrorists” are coming to get them, conquer the United States, and take over the federal government, Americans continue to blithely permit their government officials to erode their rights. Their indifference to the cancellation of the Great Writ – the writ of habeas corpus, the lynchpin of a free society – is an affront those who struggled for centuries to ensure its enshrinement and protection. It also constitutes one of the gravest and most ominous threats to freedom of the American people in the history of our nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saw the following as well:
Quote:
"Lincoln used the war to "remove the constraints that Southern senators and congressmen, standing in the Jeffersonian tradition, placed in the way of centralized federal power, high tariffs, and subsidies to Northern industries." Indeed, Lincoln’s 28-year political career prior to becoming president was devoted almost exclusively to this end. Even Lincoln idolater Mark Neely, Jr., in The Fate of Liberty, noted that as early as the 1840s, Lincoln exhibited a "gruff and belittling impatience" with constitutional arguments against his cherished Whig economic agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for the railroad and road building industries, and a federal government monopolization of the money supply. Once he was in power, Lincoln appointed himself "constitutional dictator" and immediately pushed through this mercantilist economic agenda – an agenda that had been vetoed by president after president beginning with Jefferson."
Quote:
"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln’s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments."
Quote:
Chief Justic Roger B. Taney: As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress.
When the conspiracy of which Aaron Burr was the head, became so formidable, and was so extensively ramified, as to justify, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, the suspension of the writ, he claimed, on his part, no power to suspend it, but communicated his opinion to congress, with all the proofs in his possession, in order that congress might exercise its discretion upon the subject, and determine whether the public safety required it. And in the debate which took place upon the subject, no one suggested that Mr. Jefferson might exercise the power himself, if, in his opinion, the public safety demanded it.
Having, therefore, regarded the question as too plain and too well settled to be open to dispute, if the commanding officer had stated that, upon his own responsibility, and in the exercise of his own discretion, he refused obedience to the writ, I should have contented myself with referring to the clause in the constitution, and to the construction it received from every jurist and statesman of that day, when the case of Burr was before them. But being thus officially notified that the privilege of the writ has been suspended, under the orders, and by the authority of the president, and believing, as I do, that the president has exercised a power which he does not possess under the constitution, a proper respect for the high office he fills, requires me to state plainly and fully the grounds of my opinion, in order to show that I have not ventured to question the legality of his act, without a careful and deliberate examination of the whole subject.
The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing "that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives." And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress "the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
The power of legislation granted by this latter clause is, by its words, carefully confined to the specific objects before enumerated. But as this limitation was unavoidably somewhat indefinite, it was deemed necessary to guard more effectually certain great cardinal principles, essential to the liberty of the citizen, and to the rights and equality of the states, by denying to congress, in express terms, any power of legislation over them. It was apprehended, it seems, that such legislation might be attempted, under the pretext that it was necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers granted; and it was determined, that there should be no room to doubt, where rights of such vital importance were concerned; and accordingly, this clause is immediately followed by an enumeration of certain subjects, to which the powers of legislation shall not extend. The great importance which the framers of the constitution attached to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to protect the liberty of the citizen, is proved by the fact, that its suspension, except in cases of invasion or rebellion, is first in the list of prohibited powers; and even in these cases the power is denied, and its exercise prohibited, unless the public safety shall require it.
It is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power.
Even if the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus were suspended by act of congress, and a party not subject to the rules and articles of war were afterwards arrested and imprisoned by regular judicial process, he could not be detained in prison, or brought to trial before a military tribunal, for the article in the amendments to the constitution immediately following the one above referred to (that is, the sixth article) provides, that "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 defence."
The only power, therefore, which the president possesses, where the "life, liberty or property" of a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the third section of the second article, which requires "that he shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed." He is not authorized to execute them himself, or through agents or officers, civil or military, appointed by himself, but he is to take care that they be faithfully carried into execution, as they are expounded and adjudged by the coordinate branch of the government to which that duty is assigned by the constitution. It is thus made his duty to come in aid of the judicial authority, if it shall be resisted by a force too strong to be overcome without the assistance of the executive arm; but in exercising this power he acts in subordination to judicial authority, assisting it to execute its process and enforce its judgments. With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law.
Justice Taney then supports his case by referring to not only the U.S. Constitution, and Joseph Story's commentary on it, but his predecessor, Chief Justice John Marshall, as well as Blackstone's Commentaries, Hallam's Constitutional History, the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Habeas Corpus Act. His concluding remarks on the case are as follows:
But the documents before me show, that the military authority in this case has gone far beyond the mere suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It has, by force of arms, thrust aside the judicial authorities and officers to whom the constitution has confided the power and duty of interpreting and administering the laws, and substituted a military government in its place, to be administered and executed by military officers. For, at the time these proceedings were had against John Merryman, the district judge of Maryland, the commissioner appointed under the act of congress, the district attorney and the marshal, all resided in the city of Baltimore, a few miles only from the home of the prisoner. Up to that time, there had never been the slightest resistance or obstruction to the process of any court or judicial officer of the United States, in Maryland, except by the military authority. And if a military officer, or any other person, had reason to believe that the prisoner had committed any offence against the laws of the United States, it was his duty to give information of the fact and the evidence to support it, to the district attorney; it would then have become the duty of that officer to bring the matter before the district judge or commissioner, and if there was sufficient legal evidence to justify his arrest, the judge or commissioner would have issued his warrant to the marshal to arrest him; and upon the hearing of the case, would have held him to bail, or committed him for trial, according to the character of the offence, as it appeared in the testimony, or would have discharged him immediately, if there was not sufficient evidence to support the accusation. There was no danger of any obstruction or resistance to the action of the civil authorities, and therefore no reason whatever for the interposition of the military.
Yet, under these circumstances, a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the district attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the district of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if indeed he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without a hearing, even before himself, to close custody, in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.
The constitution provides, as I have before said, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." It declares that "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 warrant 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." It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.
These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
In such a case, my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him; I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the president of the United States. It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfillment of his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced.
The closing words of Justice Taney were on Lincoln's mind, for when he defended his actions before Congress in an Independence Day speech not two months later, he said: "Soon after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in proper cases according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or in other words to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it, are questioned; and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' should not himself violate them." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
| October 5, 2006
Waterboarding the Constitution
After Torture, What's Next?
http://www.counterpunch.org
By JAMES ABOUREZK
So, waterboarding is now OK. So is the suspension of one of our basic rights of freedom-the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus, according to the U.S. Constitution, can only be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion. Our Supreme Court has held, "habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."
Abe Lincoln suspended the Writ during the Civil War, and even then it was a questionable act. And even more hopeless is that part of the law that permits President George W. Bush to interpret Common Article Three of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Although Mr. Bush claims that the article is vague, no one before him has had any trouble understanding that torture is wrong, and in violation of international law.
But the suspension of the Writ in 2006 is not only unconstitutional because there is neither a rebellion nor have we been invaded. It is flat out wrong.
The only rebellion we were faced with was the one begun by three Republican Senators-McCain, Graham and Warner. All three had served in the military, but McCain had actually spent time as a prisoner of war in North Viet Nam . Many of us cheered when he stood up to the President to say that if we permitted torture, which is what Bush and Cheney were trying to legalize, our own soldiers, sailors and airmen would be subject to the same brutalization as Mr. Bush was hoping to inflict on his "terror suspects."
But the rebellion was quickly quelled when McCain, Graham and Warner caved in and said that the compromise they worked out with the President would both preserve our morals and get valuable information from enemy combatants.
First, people who are experts in interrogation of the enemy pretty much agree that torture doesn't work. Those being tortured will say anything they think their interrogators want to hear, just so the torture will stop. Secondly, the information, even if true, which is rare, in virtually every case is outdated by the time the torture is finished. Certainly no enemy would continue with plans known to someone who was captured.
But even more importantly, as Former Secretary of State and famous Army general, Colin Powell, said, we lose our moral high ground if we torture prisoners. To me, that is a hundred times more powerful a statement than the repetitious rantings of George W. Bush who continually cites the mantra, "we are protecting Americans." That phrase, of course, is born of polling that says Americans want to be protected, and delivered by the likes of Karl Rove, who, if nothing else, knows how to demagogue.
But the hottest place in political hell should be reserved for members of Congress, including the weak-kneed Democrats, who essentially went along with Mr. Bush's "compromise."
It did not seem to bother Senators and Representatives that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is being suspended for enemy combatants. There is now no way to learn whether or not the prisoner is indeed an enemy, or just someone who was gathered up in a sweep of foreigners in Afghanistan, because, without habeas corpus, their detention cannot be tested in a court.
Senate Democrats, who in recent years have dug in to filibuster at the slightest provocation, this time merely stood up to record their opposition, knowing full well they would lose a straight up or down vote on the Bush compromise. But instead of really trying to stop the legislation, those who opposed it were content to make a speech and vote against it so they could later brag about their principled stand.
Everyone knew that was the Bush/Rove strategy-bring it up just before the elections so you can accuse the opposition of being soft on terrorism. It worked with the Iraqi War resolution in 2002, so why not now?
My wife, who is from the Middle East, in fact from a country that tortures its prisoners, was nearly in tears when, after hearing about the legislation, told me that everyone in her home country always looked up to America as a beacon of freedom. But those who loved America as an idea would now feel completely alone.
President Bush continually says that, "they" hate us because of our freedoms. That may explain why, in this legislation and in the Patriot Act, he is, piece by piece, trying to remove our freedoms. If this is his idea of protecting Americans, we really can't stand much more protection.
The public's opposition to this draconian law is the only thing that will give Congress the backbone to preserve our freedoms.
James Abourezk served as the U.S. Congressman and Senator from South Dakota from 1973-1979. His memoir, Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate, was published in 1989. Abourezk founded the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and he is a signer of the Call from World Can't Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime which is holding protests in over 150 cities on October 5, 2006. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: |
| VDARE.COM - http://www.vdare.com/roberts/061012_bush.htm
October 12, 2006
The Case for Impeachment—And Why The Democrats Won’t Do It
By Paul Craig Roberts
The case for impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is far stronger than the case against President Bill Clinton or the pending case that drove President Nixon to resign. With Republican control of Congress, especially of the House where impeachment must originate, it is hardly surprising that impeachment of the Republican Bush administration is a dead letter.
What is surprising is that conservatives with a long tradition of adulation for the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have not been up in arms against the Bush regime’s all out assault on the foundation of America’s political system. Instead, the case for impeachment has come from the left-wing. This weakens the case, because it can be portrayed as a partisan political move instead of a last ditch attempt to save the Constitution.
In "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney," edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips, left-wing professors, journalists, and activists present a 300-page twelve-count indictment.
It is for the most part a sound indictment. A conservative American constitutionalist who loves his country can find little in the case for impeachment to which to take exception.
Despite the strength of the case for impeachment, I do not think it will happen, because Bush has convinced Americans that his crimes against truth, the US Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions are necessary measures in the "war against terrorists." As long as Americans understand 9/11 as an attack on America by "Islamo- Fascism," the executive branch will have wide latitude in usurping liberty.
Seymour Hersh in his book, Chain of Command, asks: "How did eight or nine neoconservatives redirect the government and rearrange long- standing American priorities and policies with so much ease? How did they overcome the bureaucracy, intimidate the press, mislead the Congress, and dominate the military? Is our democracy that fragile?"
"How indeed?" ask the editors of Impeach the President. Their answer seems to be that the Democrats have been intimidated and "truth and facts have been barricaded off from reaching most of the American people." The editors have faith in the American people to do the right thing if only they can find out the truth.
It is refreshing to see that the left-wing, unlike the neoconservatives, believes in the American system. However, as Claes Ryn indicates in his book, America the Virtuous, it would appear that the American system has been eroded over the decades by the rise of the new Jacobin ideology known as neoconservatism.
In columns available on Antiwar.com on October 12, Leon Hadar and William S. Lind point out that the Democrats are as neoconized as the neoconized Republicans. There is no difference.
At a recent conference hosted by the journal, The National Interest, it was the Democrat, Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute who sounded like Richard Perle and William Kristol, not Republican Stefan Halper who served in the Reagan administration. Halper presented a devastating critique of Bush’s neocon foreign policy.
The problem is not that the Democrats are intimidated. The problem is that the Democrats are part of the problem. The editors of Impeach the President indirectly acknowledge this fact when they report that Congress "looked the other way" when Bush acknowledged that he lied to cover up his felony of illegally spying on US citizens and declared the real criminal to be the NSA official who blew the whistle.
Democrats, no less than Republicans, have permitted the Bush regime to violate the separation of powers and the rule of law. A branch of government that no longer defends its power is a branch of government that no longer believes in its power. Just as the Reichstag faded away for Hitler, the US Congress has faded away for the Bush administration.
Claes Ryn is correct when he says a change of mind has occurred. The Constitution and the political system based on it are on the ropes because the players no longer believe in it. They believe in executive power to act forcefully in behalf of "American exceptionalism."
Civil libertarians rely on the judiciary to defend Constitutional rights, but the Supreme Court has been compromised by Bush’s appointments of Roberts and Alito, men who believe in "energy in the executive." Without support from Congress, the judiciary cannot protect civil liberty. With the passage of the recent detainee and spy bills, Congress has allied itself with the Bush regime against civil liberty.
Beliefs are more important than institutions. Michael Polanyi wrote that if people believed in the principles of Stalinism, democracy would uphold Stalinism. If people believe in American hegemony, they will not complain when barriers to hegemonic actions are removed. If people believe fighting terrorism is more important than civil liberty, they will lose civil liberty.
What America needs to refurbish is its beliefs. Without renewing our beliefs, we cannot renew our civil liberties and hold government accountable. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
| October 12, 2006
Bush Has Achieved
America's Demise
The Founding Fathers' country
no longer exists
by Paul Craig Roberts
When does "collateral damage" so dwarf combatant deaths that war becomes genocide?
Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq has cost 655,000 Iraqis their lives. That is the conclusion of a study financed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies and conducted by physicians under the direction of Johns Hopkins University epidemiologists. These are deaths over and above the pre-invasion mortality rate. Bush's illegal invasion raised Iraq's mortality rate from 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people per year to 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The study is published by the distinguished British medical journal, The Lancet, and is available on the journal's Web site [.pdf].
The study uses a scientific method known as "cluster sampling." In 87 percent of the deaths, the researchers requested death certificates, and more than 90 percent of the surveyed households produced the death certificates. Violence accounted for 601,000 deaths, and disease and destruction of civilian infrastructure accounted for 54,000 deaths. The violent deaths are attributed to gunshot wounds, coalition air strikes, and car bombs.
Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Gilbert Burnham says, "We're very confident with the results." Columbia University epidemiologist Ronald Waldman says the survey method used is "tried and true" and that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
When asked about the report, President Bush stated, "I don't consider it a credible report." Bush, of course, is not reality-based, and he knows that any unfavorable news is "enemy propaganda." That's what the neocons who pull his strings tell him, and that is what he believes.
What percentage of these 655,000 deaths were insurgents or "terrorists"? Probably 1 percent and no more than 2 percent. Bush's "war on terror" is, in fact, a war on Iraqi civilians.
Bush's invasion has also spawned sectarian conflict or civil war, although the Bush regime denies it. Even Bush is smart enough to know that "bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq" is not compatible with setting off a civil war in Iraq. Since Bush the faith-based believes that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq," he cannot accept the fact that he has started a civil war.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are not the only innocent victims of Bush's illegal aggression. The New York Times (Oct. 11) reports that Department of Veterans Affairs documents show that about one in five U.S. soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan have suffered at least partial disability.
To date, more than 100,000 U.S. troops who are veterans of these wars have been granted disability compensation. Although the U.S. cannot put on the ground in Iraq more than 150,000 troops at one time, 1.5 million troops have served so far and 567,000 have been discharged, of which 100,000 are receiving disability payments.
Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, says that the current rate of injuries will produce 400,000 American veterans suffering 30 percent to 100 percent disability. Apparently, one of the severe forms of disability is post-traumatic stress, which does not count as a physical wound.
What is America's reward for Bush's illegal wars that have killed 655,000 Iraqis, an uncounted number of Afghans, and disabled as many as 400,000 U.S. troops?
According to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate and to practically every Middle East expert, Bush's invasions have radicalized the Muslim Middle East, created legions of recruits for extremists, undermined America's puppet rulers, imperiled Israel, and destroyed America's reputation.
We are talking about over 1 million casualties that have no other cause than blatant lies by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, the bloodthirsty neoconservative cabal that occupies Bush's subcabinet, and their corporate media propagandists, especially The Weekly Standard, Fox News, National Review, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Bush regime deceived America and the world with its lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that would be turned against the West by terrorists. By giving speeches that continually mentioned Iraq in the same context as 9/11, the Bush regime created the widespread impression, still prevalent among Americans, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
What kind of government would destroy the lives through death or disability of over 1 million people for no valid reason?
The same kind of government that fires its own lawyers for doing their constitutional duty. Navy lawyer Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift was assigned the task of bringing Salim Hamdan to a guilty plea before the unconstitutional military tribunal that President Bush created for Guantanamo detainees. Instead, Cmdr. Swift did his duty and defended his client, winning in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bush administration retaliated by blocking Cmdr. Swift's promotion, which killed his military career and sent the chilling message to all U.S. military and government attorneys that constitutional scruples are career-enders in the Bush regime. Anyone who stands for the U.S. Constitution is against Bush and his neocon regime.
The Bush regime is proceeding exactly as the Nazi regime proceeded. First, eliminate every person of conscience and integrity from the government. Second, redefine duty as service to the leader: "You are with us or against us" – a formulation that leaves no place for duty to the U.S. Constitution. Patriotism is redefined from loyalty to country and Constitution to loyalty to the government's leader.
Americans are too inattentive and distracted to be aware of the grave danger that the neoconservative Bush regime presents to American liberty and to world stability. The neoconservative drive to achieve hegemony over the American people and the entire world is similar to Hitler's drive for hegemony. Hitler used racial superiority to justify Germany's right to ride roughshod over other peoples and the right of the Nazi elite to rule over the German people. Neoconservatives use "American exceptionalism" and "the war on terror." There is no practical difference. Hitler cared no more about the peoples he mowed down in his drive for supremacy than the neoconservatives care about 655,000 dead Iraqis, 100,000 disabled American troops, and 2,747 dead ones.
When Bush the Decider claims unconstitutional powers and uses "signing statements" to negate U.S. law whenever he feels the rule of law is in the way of his leadership, he is remarkably similar to Hitler, the F? who told the Reichstag on Feb. 20, 1938: "A man who feels it his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of his people is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or to a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the people."
You are with us or against us.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9844 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
